# American ports and the UAE



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

*Should the six ports be allowed to be sold to the United Arab Emirates?*​
Yes523.81%No1676.19%


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

And now for something completely different.

A company in the United Arab Emirates or UAE has made an attempt to buy six ports on American soil.

Some alledge that selling the ports to a Middle Eastern based company could result in easier access to the United States for terrrorists.

Others state that it is simply good buisness, and the deal should be allowed to go through.

Thus far, the company has been checked out fine, but the hiring policy was not discussed or investigated.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist has proposed that the deal be put on hold for further investigation. Many Republicans and Democrats have come out against the sale.

President Bush has stated that he will use his power to veto any bill which attempts to block the sale.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11484804/


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Two of the 9-11 hijackers came from there, Isn't that reason enough to be concerned. Why all the secrecy with this administration? It is obvious they do not trust Americans. They took advantage of the uninformed Anericans by convincing them that Iraq was behind 9-11 when there were no Iraqis in the group, but most were Saudis. According to that rational we should of attacked them instead. We fought communism for over 50 years and then sold out to China by borrowing billions from a Communist dictatorship. I am confused.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't really like the Arabs at all as everyone here knows and I don't know enough about this deal to be for or against it but....

its not a deal to sell US ports (american soil) its a company that wants to buy the company that handles freight unloading in certain ports. Thats a big difference.

Probaby politically motivated BS is my first intial gut feeling but I wouldn't piss on an Arab to put him out if he was on fire.

I need to study this deal before I decide where I am on it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Those are some pretty bigoted comments Bob. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Either way, the UAE based company would have control of these ports and thus full access to six of our ports.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If Bush vetoes a bill to stop that deal I will be really ticked at him. This is just stupid. Just as stupid as letting the Mexican boarder leak like a sieve.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Not sure where I stand on this yet as I haven't read enough of it, but I did hear that all port security would stay the same.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wrong again they would not have full access, they would still only be unloading and still be inspected and regulated by the coast guard ect.

I do agree that your concern is real though. The borders and the ports are vulnerable as heck. And I have little confidence in the people in charge of inspections, drugs and other contraband get thru every day so the idea that a nuke or poison of some type could be smuggled in is reasonable and unfortunately probable.

And when comes to Arabs I am proud to be bigot, they are scum.

for the uniformed heres who they are

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/ae.html

and heres agood article discussing it
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

Hey welcome back Tigger I missed you so much


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Some say free trade, globalization should prevail. THis would be OK in time of peace, but we live in time of war. Clearly, trade suffers in time of war. We saw just recently how Yemeni Goverment let go a bunch of hard core terrorists they had in their jail. Muslim terrorism is like a bad infection, even freindly to us Arab governments have no control what is going on in their nations. Do not trust them!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What I saw about this last night.....UAE is supposedly on our side in the war on terrorists.Even though 2 of the 9/11 guys were from there.But the problem with this is the once again the way Bush has handled it.Keep it a secret,announce it only when necessary and then get your back up when people question it by saying you would veto any bill stopping this.

This is again evidence of this administration trying to keep things secret....again,and again,and again.

This is why as I've stated before.....my main objection about this guy is all the secrecy.....

All he had to do was let out the word about this when it was first looked at months ago..Let people really look into it,see it is harmless and .....viola.....no problem.....why should we ever trust these guys????? :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken the news is reporting that Bush didn't even know about this deal until it was already done, but he is defending it now makes me wonder what the heck they are thinking but if thats true then the Bsh secrecy thing doesn't apply
heres one pudits take on it that makes sense to me



> I've tried ... tried hard ... but it's no use. I just can't understand why George Bush is so invested in this idea of turning the operations at six essential U.S. ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, over to a foreign government ... and an Islamic foreign government at that.
> 
> Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if -- and I think it's a "when" rather than an "if" -- a nuclear device is ever smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Do you think that these containers are screened? Actually, many of them are. But where and how they are screened is critical. Most of the screening actually takes place in a foreign port before the containers are loaded onto a ship for the trip to America. Are any of those containers screened here? Yes. A few. A very few. The primary method of screening is for our security officials to look at the container manifests while those containers are at sea to determine which containers will be opened for further screening. What is being proposed here is to put a foreign government, an Islamic government, in virtual control over just how those manifests are prepared and how they will read ... especially the manifests for containers being shipped from a port operated by an Islamic government TO a port being operated by an Islamic government.
> 
> ...


Really lets you know how vulnerable we really are :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

So which country should we award the contract to that hasn't had a convicted terrorist, including our own country!

First of all these are just workers as I understand it (just labor) just like combat zones, we have to hire people that want US dead to cook our food  but they are supervised by our people to make sure they're doing what they we're hired to do.
So what's the real problem here; unions(liberals) in this country are stiring the pot because they overbid the contract and want to get the contract at double the price so we can have a bunch of MT's working in our ports instead


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

ABB....wrong....once again,blame anything on liberals you don't like.From what I saw....Republicans in Congress aren't to happy about this either.It's not that they were hired for the job.....but that once again it was kept a secret.This is happening over and over and over with this administration.And as soon as the news of this broke,Bush threatens his first veto. :eyeroll:

Who the heck in this administration handles this kind of publicity?How many times must this kind of thing happen before they get the message?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

So whatever your not aware of is secret? 
Gov contracts for the most part are completly open to the public, the bidding details are open AFTER it is awarded for obveous reasons.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

How is it an adminstration secret if Bush just heard about it a few days ago?

I really dont think its as big a problem as its being made out to be. It's not like we're handing these ports over to Bin Laden. An independant group found the UAE to be good enough, it wasnt a partisan deal. Should we be cautious? Sure we should. But the reaction most people are having is a bit out of hand.

Lets not forget its just as easy for a terrorist to get a job at an american company doing the same work. With the exception of a few masterminds, its impossible to say who might be a terrorist. Look at Jose PAdilla, or John Walker Lindh. Heck, they just nabbed 3 guys in Ohio.. What exactly is there to attack in Ohio??


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This is where this whole thread came from, MT based on BS.
Here some of his quotes:Militant_Tiger


> guest
> 
> Joined: 22 Feb 2004
> Posts: 2379
> ...


Now as you can see for yourself without a bunch of fact finding.
MT is full of lies and crap!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This is how liberals spin things to try to get people on their side :eyeroll: *LIES*!


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I do not buy this about they are our friends, it was not to many years ago that Rummy was kissing Saddam Hussein, and that picture only showed him kissing his face, Its not our fault that the Muslims have let religious extremist keep them back in the dark ages, but they are quick to put the blame on us for their lack of success in the world. Lets hope the Arabs and Chinese do not cash in the many billions dollars worth of our bonds that they hold, we would really be in trouble.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Wasn't that long ago the US was giving saddam cash for military build-up that was "FOOD FOR OIL"


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Wrong again they would not have full access, they would still only be unloading and still be inspected and regulated by the coast guard ect.


About 5% of the cargo is inspected Bob. This will be a full operational takeover, thus giving them full access.



> And when comes to Arabs I am proud to be bigot, they are scum.


Do you have any idea just how ignorant that sounds? You may as well say that all Americans are scum just because a small fragment of our population had joined the KKK. Not all Arabs are bad, the great majority are not. You cannot stereotype a people based on the actions of a few.



> We saw just recently how Yemeni Goverment let go a bunch of hard core terrorists they had in their jail. Muslim terrorism is like a bad infection, even freindly to us Arab governments have no control what is going on in their nations. Do not trust them!


The region is very volatile. The UAE has us over a barrel here because we use several of their ports and airbases to train our troops and ship things. Much like oil, we have our hands tied up, and we will suffer if we do not get them untangled from the mess that is the current mid east.



> Ken the news is reporting that Bush didn't even know about this deal until it was already done


If that is so, then that is quite scary. The idea that a country which is known to be soft on terror can buy easy access into our country without the president being informed is a serious security hole.



> So what's the real problem here; unions(liberals) in this country are stiring the pot because they overbid the contract and want to get the contract at double the price so we can have a bunch of MT's working in our ports instead


So you are against using American labor in American ports? That seems like a rather foolish move economically.



> It's not like we're handing these ports over to Bin Laden.


We do not know that. Nearly every 9/11 hijacker went through the UAE at some point on their way to America, as well much of the funds they used were held in accounts in said place. We may very well be handing the port over to Bin Laden, but that remains to be seen. I can't see how we can justify that risk, though.



> Now as you can see for yourself without a bunch of fact finding.
> MT is full of lies and crap!


I posted three seperate, reputible sites for you to get this story from. If you don't want to take my word for it, read theirs.



> Wasn't that long ago the US was giving saddam cash for military build-up that was "FOOD FOR OIL"


Lets try to stay on topic. This is a rather important issue for everyone.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > It's not like we're handing these ports over to Bin Laden.
> 
> 
> We do not know that. Nearly every 9/11 hijacker went through the UAE at some point on their way to America, as well much of the funds they used were held in accounts in said place. We may very well be handing the port over to Bin Laden, but that remains to be seen. I can't see how we can justify that risk, though.


For that matter, EVERY hijacker went through the US too.... I imagine they probably had local bank accounts as well.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> So whatever your not aware of is secret?
> Gov contracts for the most part are completly open to the public, the bidding details are open AFTER it is awarded for obveous reasons.


So it's OK to give the bid to terrorists if they are the low bidder and those nasty liberal AMERICAN union members shouldn't get the bid??? :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

And the Unions aren't?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Ken the news is reporting that Bush didn't even know about this deal until it was already done, but he is defending it now makes me wonder what the heck they are thinking but if thats true then the Bsh secrecy thing doesn't apply
> heres one pudits take on it that makes sense to mequote]
> 
> Bob.....wasn't this actually done last Sept?
> ...


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Well this all falls in line with this Global economy ****. This we are one world philosiphy. Hey I am just waiting for somebody to start yelling RACISM to all that oppose this port deal. We need to control everything within our borders and most of what is just outside our borders. Our goverment does not have our best interest as a goal "that is how I see it". The ansewer to what is going on is the ansewer to 99 out of 100 questions. "MONEY"


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Democrats wanted this to come up now because their running out of gas on the Chenney thing and elections are just around the corner, need some spin! uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Democrats wanted this to come up now because their running out of gas on the Chenney thing and elections are just around the corner, need some spin! uke:


Are you implying that the Democrats initiated the deal with the UAE just to make the Republicans look bad? Man I've heard some bad conspiracy theories, but that is awful.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

It's been out there for over a year, why bring it up now? :sniper:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > And when comes to Arabs I am proud to be bigot, they are scum.
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea just how ignorant that sounds? You may as well say that all Americans are scum just because a small fragment of our population had joined the KKK. Not all Arabs are bad, the great majority are not. You cannot stereotype a people based on the actions of a few.


Arent you doing the same by immediately questioning the integrity of the UAE government? At least Bob is being honest.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Stating that a country has ties to terror and stating that an entire people have ties to terror are two utterly different things.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

No they arent. You're just trying to use that as a defence for being a bigot yourself. Islamic terrorists know no ties to any country. They will attack and bomb whomever they please. Some come from UAE, others from Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Northern California.

Show me documneted proof that the UAE supports and funds terrorism, and I will retract everything I've said. But untill you can do so, you're more than a bigot, you're a cowardly one.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> It's been out there for over a year, why bring it up now


Where did you hear that at.

I had to make a trip to Oklahoma City today and that is all that has been on the Radio from all stations. Couple things I did hear was the entire deal was started and completed in three weeks. Rumsfeld who is on one of the boards that deals in these matters didn't know about it until this past weekend. Ditto for Michael Chertoff. The President just recently learned about it himself. From what I'm hearing this was more or less done at the mid level as most of these business deals are done and then a seal of approval is placed on the contract. And that is what it is, a contract for the UAE to provide services at the ports named. Security and control of the ports still remain with The Coast Guard and Homeland Security.
From all that I have gathered so far a couple things stand out. One is Bush who is often hard headed spoke before knowing all the facts himself. The media in it's normal fashion has found something for the front pages. The Democrats also have something now to help them stay on the six o'clock news and the Republicans that want to run for President in 2008 have found something that they think makes them look bigger and more appealing.

I don't believe we know all the facts just yet but they seem to be slowly coming out. I think this has been blown out of proportion but having said that I don't like the idea of the UAE having anything to do with our ports. It just doesn't sit right in a time of war and we are in a war. Further I think two things will now happen. One Bush will figure out a way to get himself out of the corner he has boxed himself in and that will probable come about with the UAE speaking up and saying they will agree to further investigation of the contract and pull out if asked. And two, congress will put up a bill to not allow any foreign country to have dealings with our ports. Either way I don't think in the end the UAE will get the contract.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No they arent. You're just trying to use that as a defence for being a bigot yourself. Islamic terrorists know no ties to any country. They will attack and bomb whomever they please. Some come from UAE, others from Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Northern California.


I'll try to put this in simple terms to you. If your house gets robbed by a black man, that doesn't give you justification to keep all blacks out of your home. If your home gets robbed by a particular family, it might be wise to keep them away. The UAE has not done much if anything to crack down on terrorists in their country, and as such they harbor terrorists. Note that during World War Two we attacked Germany, not Europeans. Your line of logic is simply illogical.



> Show me documneted proof that the UAE supports and funds terrorism, and I will retract everything I've said. But untill you can do so, you're more than a bigot, you're a cowardly one.


Again, this is illogical. You are claiming that I am bigoted towards said country, but then state that if I have proof of terrorist activities that you will agree with me, thus becoming a bigot yourself. Your argument thus far has been that one cannot be biased towards a country, and you counter this in the very next paragraph. What exactly is your argument now?

Anyhow... here is some proof as to what terrorist activities have occured within the UAE.

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op ... #terrorism

Secondly, the UAE was one of three countries to recognize the Taliban.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 72,00.html

An article from the Guardian explaining how many of the hijackers on 9/11 used funds from an account in the UAE to carry out their attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/stor ... 01,00.html
Note that they did freeze the accounts, after the fact, and have done little to prevent further terrorist actions.

An article on the Navy Seals' site from AP speaking of the UAE's ties to the 9/11 terrorists

http://www.navyseals.com/community/arti ... fm?id=9036

And finally a story on Fox News speaking of UAE ties to terror

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185725,00.html

Good enough?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So it's OK to give the bid to terrorists if they are the low bidder and those nasty liberal AMERICAN union members shouldn't get the bid???


Lets see now, terrorists - union, terrorist - union, terrorists - union, gee some decisions are just so hard. :rollin:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I'll try to put this in simple terms to you. If your house gets robbed by a black man, that doesn't give you justification to keep all blacks out of your home. If your home gets robbed by a particular family, it might be wise to keep them away. The UAE has not done much if anything to crack down on terrorists in their country, and as such they harbor terrorists. Note that during World War Two we attacked Germany, not Europeans. Your line of logic is simply illogical.


I can justify pretty much anything I want in regards to who I let in my house. Its my house. As it is, I keep a close eye on blacks more than whites when it comes to the people I see in my neighborhood, but its more because the popular style for these kids is to look like a thug. Doesnt mean they all are, but I believe if they wanna look the part, its just a matter of time before they act the part. For what its worth, I keep an even closer eye on white kids dressed "gangsta" because IMHO, they have more to prove to be accepted as a thug.

You're right in that during WW2, we were at war with Germans, not Europeans. Im not sayin were at war with Arabs. Im saying were at war with Islamic Terrorists, which for all intents and purposes lumps a LOT more people into that view, and Im not ashamed of it either. I dont believe Islam is a religion of peace. I believe that every muslim that says he believes in the teachings of the prophet Muhammed is either a willing terrorist or a very bad muslim. Muslims are violent. Its who they are. Hell, Malcom X, a muslim himself, was killed by other muslims that didnt agree with his line of thinking.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Again, this is illogical. You are claiming that I am bigoted towards said country, but then state that if I have proof of terrorist activities that you will agree with me, thus becoming a bigot yourself. Your argument thus far has been that one cannot be biased towards a country, and you counter this in the very next paragraph. What exactly is your argument now?


I should have been more clear, I'd retract the cowardly bigot comment. Sorry about the confusion. As for myself being a bigot, maybe I am. I know I dont want to sit on an airplane with a jittery Arab clutching his Koran. If that makes me a paranoid bigot, fine. I can live with that. All Im saying is your attempt to say that you are concerned about a countries legitimate buisness transaction for reasons other than simply fearing Arabs is bogus, and you're simply trying to rationalize to yourself that you are not a bigot.

In regard to your proof, there is some good information in the articles you linked, albeit some are more opinion than fact.

Granted, terrorists quite successfully used assets in the UAE to commit attacks, that is not in question. They used American flight schools too. Should we stop all pilots from training at the schools used by terrorists? The terrorists effectively used services available to them. I have a hard time faulting another governments supposed lack of action when no other government was any better.

for the record, I'd like to see Americans working these ports. Problem is the unions would drive cost to unimaginable levels.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When I first heard this I was ready to tar and feather Bush. Now I have a few more facts, but I'm still not convinced. I do have a better perspective and that is if they are not controlling any security then the ports are still safer than the Mexican border. I don't understand why Bush doesn't take care of that.

I don't like to speculate, but if I had to I would guess things are going something like this. These ports offer contracts, the UAE gets low bid. Somebody gets cold feet and pressure from Saudi Arabia and perhaps others is brought upon the ports. The president gets called and some foreign official says, we support your war on terrorism, we buy your goods, we allow your military to base in our nation, and now you will not honor a contract. I can see where Bush is between a rock and a hard spot.

From my perspective this doesn't come close to Gore approving the sale of missile guidance technology to China, although that doesn't make me feel any better.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN! Gun Owner and Plainsman! :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You're right in that during WW2, we were at war with Germans, not Europeans. Im not sayin were at war with Arabs. Im saying were at war with Islamic Terrorists, which for all intents and purposes lumps a LOT more people into that view, and Im not ashamed of it either. I dont believe Islam is a religion of peace. I believe that every muslim that says he believes in the teachings of the prophet Muhammed is either a willing terrorist or a very bad muslim. Muslims are violent. Its who they are. Hell, Malcom X, a muslim himself, was killed by other muslims that didnt agree with his line of thinking.


You say that because you don't understand the religion of Islam and have probably never taken time to speak to someone who is educated about it or read the Koran. It is not by nature a violent religion, just a violent region.



> All Im saying is your attempt to say that you are concerned about a countries legitimate buisness transaction for reasons other than simply fearing Arabs is bogus, and you're simply trying to rationalize to yourself that you are not a bigot.


No, I'm concerned with American security. I do not hate Arabs, I do not dislike Arabs, I have no issue with Arabs whatsoever. I have a problem with a country that coddles terrorists and only makes a half hearted move against them when they are in the public spotlight and must do so to step out of it.



> In regard to your proof, there is some good information in the articles you linked, albeit some are more opinion than fact.


Care to point any of this opinion out?



> Granted, terrorists quite successfully used assets in the UAE to commit attacks, that is not in question. They used American flight schools too. Should we stop all pilots from training at the schools used by terrorists? The terrorists effectively used services available to them. I have a hard time faulting another governments supposed lack of action when no other government was any better.


No, we should crack down such that terrorists cannot get into flight school. Had taken action against the terrorists instead of just making half hearted promises, I wouldn't mind them. Why you insist on allowing a new passage for terrorists to enter this country of ours, I cannot determine.



> I'd like to see Americans working these ports. Problem is the unions would drive cost to unimaginable levels.


Do you think that dock workers are sitting around smoking Cuban cigars and wearing tuxedos? They drive prices up because the cost to live is being driven up.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

:eyeroll: Starting to sound like a socialist again MT uke:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I still am not sure where I am going to stand on this issue, but MT do you realize that all port security will stay the same, controlled by the Coast Guard and Dept. of Homeland Security?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I do indeed, my problem is that at the current time, about 5% of cargo coming into this country is checked. That means that if they wished to do so, there is a 95% chance that terrorists could get materials into our ports without our knowledge. That is a very scary prospect, especially considering the very poor record on terror that the UAE has.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT doesn't understand basic understanding and reasoning skills; went to school on the short bus :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

ABBK I ask you to either add something to the discussion, or do not participate. Your random babbles distract people from the issue at hand.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT
Your right about one thing, mine might be random, but yours are constant.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres a intersting article about his issue

Port Security Is Still A House of Cards
January/February 2006

By Stephen E. Flynn

As one of the world's busiest ports, it is fitting that Hong Kong played host to the World Trade Organization's December 2005 meeting. After all, seaports serve as the on- and off-ramps for the vast majority of traded goods. Still, the leaders of the 145 delegations that convened in Hong Kong undoubtedly did not have much more than a sightseer's interest in the host city's magnificent and frenetic harbor. For the most part, finance and trade ministers see trade liberalization as involving efforts to negotiate rules that open markets and level the playing field. They take as a given the availability of transportation infrastructures that physically link markets separated by vast distances.

But the days when policy makers could take safe transportation for granted are long past. The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and subsequent attacks on Madrid and London show that transport systems have become favored targets for terrorist organizations. It is only a matter of time before terrorists breach the superficial security measures in place to protect the ports, ships and the millions of intermodal containers that link global producers to consumers.

Should that breach involve a weapon of mass destruction, the United States and other countries will likely raise the port security alert system to its highest level, while investigators sort out what happened and establish whether or not a follow-on attack is likely. In the interim, the flow of all inbound traffic will be slowed so that the entire intermodal container system will grind to a halt. In economic terms, the costs associated with managing the attack's aftermath will substantially dwarf the actual destruction from the terrorist event itself.

Fortunately, there are pragmatic measures that governments and the private sector can pursue right now that would substantially enhance the integrity and resilience of global trade lanes. Trade security can be improved with modest upfront investments that enhance supply chain visibility and accountability, allowing companies to better manage the choreography of global logistics-and, in the process, improve their financial returns. In short, there is both a public safety imperative and a powerful economic case for advancing trade security.

A Brittle System

Though advocates for more open global markets rarely acknowledge it, when it comes to converting free trade from theory to practice the now-ubiquitous cargo container deserves a great deal of credit. On any given day, millions of containers carrying up to 32 tons of goods each are moving on trucks, trains and ships. These movements have become remarkably affordable, efficient, and reliable, resulting in increasingly complex and economically expedient global supply chains for manufacturers and retailers.

From a commercial standpoint, this has been all for the good. But there is a problem: as enterprises' dependence on the intermodal transportation system rises, they become extremely vulnerable to the consequences of a disruption in the system. To appreciate why that is so requires a brief primer on how that system has evolved.

Arguably, one of the most unheralded revolutions of the 20th century was the widespread adoption of the cargo container to move manufactured and perishable goods around the planet. In the middle of the last century, shipping most goods was labor intensive: items had to be individually moved from a loading dock at a factory to the back of a truck and then offloaded and reloaded onto a ship. Upon arrival in a foreign port, cargo had to be removed by longshoremen from the ship's holds, then moved to dock warehouses where the shipments would be examined by customs inspectors. Then they were loaded onto another transportation conveyance to be delivered to their final destination. This constant packing and repacking was inefficient and costly. It also routinely involved damage and theft. As a practical matter, this clumsy process was a barrier to trade.

The cargo container changed all that. Now goods can be placed in a container at a factory and be moved from one mode of transportation to another without being manually handled by intermediaries along the way. Larger vessels can be built to carry several thousand containers in a single voyage. In short, as global trade liberalization accelerated, the transportation system was able to accommodate the growing number of buyers and sellers.

Arguably, East Asia has been the biggest beneficiary of this transportation revolution. Despite the distance between Asia and the U.S., a container can be shipped from Hong Kong, Shanghai, or Singapore to the West Coast for roughly $4,000. This cost represents a small fraction of the $66,000 average value of goods in each container that is destined for the U.S.

However, multiple port closures in the U.S. and elsewhere would quickly throw this system into chaos. U.S.-bound container ships would be stuck in docks, unable to unload their cargo. Marine terminals would have to close their gates to all incoming containers since they would have no place to store them. Perishable cargo would spoil. Soon, factories would be idle and retailers' shelves bare.

In short, a terrorist event involving the intermodal transportation system could lead to unprecedented disruption of the global trade system, and East Asia has the most to lose.

What Has Been Done?

The possibility that terrorists could compromise the maritime and intermodal transportation system has led several U.S. agencies to pursue initiatives to manage this risk. The U.S. Coast Guard chose to take a primarily multilateral approach by working through the London-based International Maritime Organization to establish new international standards for improving security practices on vessels and within ports, known as the International Ship and Port Facility Code (ISPS). As of July 1, 2004, each member state was obliged to certify that the ships that fly their flag or the facilities under their jurisdiction are code-compliant.

The Coast Guard also requires that ships destined for the U.S. provide a notice of their arrival a minimum of 96 hours in advance and include a description of their cargoes as well as a crew and passenger list. The agency then assesses the potential risk the vessel might pose. If the available intelligence indicates a pre-arrival security check may be warranted, it arranges to intercept the ship at sea or as it enters the harbor in order to conduct an inspection.

The new U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which was established within the Department of Homeland Security, mandated that ocean carriers must electronically file cargo manifests outlining the contents of U.S.-bound containers 24 hours in advance of their being loaded overseas. These manifests are then analyzed against the intelligence databases at CBP's National Targeting Center to determine if the container may pose a risk.

If so, it will likely be inspected overseas before it is loaded on a U.S.-bound ship under a new protocol called the Container Security Initiative (CSI). As of November 2005, there were 41 CSI port agreements in place where the host country permits U.S. customs inspectors to operate within its jurisdiction and agrees to pre-loading inspections of any targeted containers.

Decisions about which containers will not be subjected to an inspection are informed by an importer's willingness to participate in another post-9/11 initiative, known as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT importers and transportation companies agree voluntarily to conduct self-assessments of their company operations and supply chains, and then put in place security measures to address any security vulnerabilities they find. At the multilateral level, U.S. customs authorities have worked with the Brussels-based World Customs Organization on establishing a new framework to improve trade security for all countries.

In addition to these Coast Guard and Customs initiatives, the U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense have developed their own programs aimed at the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. They have been focused primarily on developing the means to detect a "dirty bomb" or a nuclear weapon.

The Energy Department has been funding and deploying radiation sensors in many of the world's largest ports as a part of a program called the Megaport Initiative. These sensors are designed to detect radioactive material within containers. The Pentagon has undertaken a counterproliferation initiative that involves obtaining permission from seafaring countries to allow specially trained U.S Navy boarding teams to conduct inspections of a flag vessel on the seas when there is intelligence that points to the possibility that nuclear material or a weapon may be part of the ship's cargo.

Finally, in September 2005, the White House weighed in with its new National Maritime Security Strategy. This purports to "present a comprehensive national effort to promote global economic stability and protect legitimate activities while preventing hostile or illegal acts within the maritime domain."

A House of Cards

Ostensibly, the flurry of U.S. government initiatives since 9/11 suggests substantial progress is being made in securing the global trade and transportation system. Unfortunately, all this activity should not be confused with real capability. For one thing, the approach has been piecemeal, with each agency pursuing its signature program with little regard for other initiatives. There are also vast disparities in the resources that the agencies have been allocated, ranging from an $800 million budget for the Department of Energy's Megaport initiative to no additional funding for the Coast Guard to support its congressionally mandated compliance to the ISPS Code. Even more problematic are some of the questionable assumptions about the nature of the terrorist threat that underpin these programs.

In an effort to secure funding and public support, agency heads and the White House have oversold the contributions of these new initiatives. Against a backdrop of inflated and unrealistic expectations, the public is likely to be highly skeptical of official assurances in the aftermath of a terrorist attack involving the intermodal transportation system. Scrambling for fresh alternatives to reassure anxious and angry citizens, the White House and Congress are likely to impose Draconian inspection protocols that dramatically raise costs and disrupt crossborder trade flows.

The new risk-management programs advanced by the CBP are especially vulnerable to being discredited, should terrorists succeed at turning a container into a poor man's missile. Before stepping down as commissioner in late November 2005, Robert Bonner repeatedly stated in public and before Congress that his inspectors were "inspecting 100% of the right 5% of containers." That implies the CBP's intelligence and analytical tools can be relied upon to pinpoint dangerous containers.

Former Commissioner Bonner is correct in identifying only a tiny percentage of containers as potential security risks. Unfortunately, CBP's risk-management framework is not up to the task of reliably identifying them, much less screening the low- or medium-risk cargoes that constitute the majority of containerized shipments and pass mostly uninspected into U.S. ports. There is very little counterterrorism intelligence available to support the agency's targeting system.

That leaves customs inspectors to rely primarily on their past experience in identifying criminal or regulatory misconduct to determine if a containerized shipment might potentially be compromised. This does not inspire confidence, given that the U.S. Congress's watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's own inspector general have documented glaring weaknesses with current customs targeting practices.

Prior to 9/11, the cornerstone of the risk-assessment framework used by customs inspectors was to identify "known shippers" that had an established track record of engaging in legitimate commercial activity. After 9/11, the agency expanded that model by extracting a commitment from shippers to follow the supply chain security practices outlined in C-TPAT. As long as there is no specific intelligence to tell inspectors otherwise, shipments from C-TPAT-compliant companies are viewed as low-risk.

The problem with this method is that it is designed to fight conventional crime; such an approach is not necessarily effective in combating determined terrorists. An attack involving a weapon of mass destruction differs in three important ways from organized criminal activity.

First, it is likely to be a one-time operation, and most private company security measures are not designed to prevent single-event infractions. Instead, corporate security officers try to detect infractions when they occur, conduct investigations after the fact, and adapt precautionary strategies accordingly.

Second, terrorists will likely target a legitimate company with a well-known brand name precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection. It is no secret which companies are viewed by U.S. customs inspectors as "trusted" shippers; many companies enlisted in C-TPAT have advertised their participation. All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a "trusted" shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers.

Third, this terrorist threat is unique in terms of the severity of the economic disruption. If a weapon of mass destruction arrives in the U.S., especially if it enters via a trusted shipper, the risk-management system that customs authorities rely on will come under intense scrutiny. In the interim, it will become impossible to treat crossborder shipments by other trusted shippers as low-risk. When every container is assumed to be potentially high-risk, everything must be examined, freezing the worldwide intermodal transportation system. The credibility of the ISPS code as a risk-detection tool is not likely to survive the aftermath of such a maritime terrorist attack, and its collapse could exacerbate a climate of insecurity that could likely exist after a successful attack.

Moreover, the radiation-detection technology currently used in the world's ports by the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection Agency is not adequately capable of detecting a nuclear weapon or a lightly shielded dirty bomb. This is because nuclear weapons are extremely well-shielded and give off very little radioactivity. If terrorists obtained a dirty bomb and put it in a box lined with lead, it's unlikely radiation sensors would detect the bomb's low levels of radioactivity.

The flaws in detection technology require the Pentagon's counterproliferation teams to physically board container ships at sea to determine if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction. Even if there were enough trained boarding teams to perform these inspections on a regular basis-and there are not-there is still the practical problem of inspecting the contents of cargo containers at sea. Such inspections are almost impossible because containers are so closely packed on a container ship that they are often simply inaccessible. This factor, when added to the sheer number of containers on each ship-upwards of 3,000-guarantees that in the absence of very detailed intelligence, inspectors will be able to perform only the most superficial of examinations.

In the end, the U.S. government's container-security policy resembles a house of cards. In all likelihood, any terrorist attack on U.S. soil that involved a maritime container would come in contact with most, or even all, of the existing maritime security protocols. Consequently, a successful seaborne attack would implicate the entire security regime, generating tremendous political pressure to abandon it.

The Way Ahead

We can do better. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations should work with the U.S. and the European Union in authorizing third parties to conduct validation audits in accordance with the security protocols outlined in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the World Customs Organization's new framework for security and trade facilitation.

A multilateral auditing organization made up of experienced inspectors should be created to periodically audit the third party auditors. This organization also should be charged with investigating major incidents and recommending appropriate changes to established security protocols.

To minimize the risk that containers will be targeted between the factory and loading port, governments should create incentives for the speedy adoption of technical standards developed by the International Standards Organization for tracking a container and monitoring its integrity. The technology now used by the U.S. Department of Defense for the global movement of military goods can provide a model for such a regime.

Asean and the EU should also endorse a pilot project being sponsored by the Container Terminal Operators Association (CTOA) of Hong Kong, in which every container that arrives passes through a gamma-ray content-scanning machine, as well as a radiation portal to record the levels of radioactivity within the container. Optical character recognition cameras then photograph the number painted on several sides of the container. These scanned images, radiation profiles, and digital photos are then stored in a database where they can be immediately retrieved if necessary.

The marine terminals in Hong Kong have invested in this system because they hope that a 100% scanning regime will deter a terrorist organization from placing a weapon of mass destruction in a container passing through their port facilities. Since each container's contents are scanned, if a terrorist tries to shield radioactive material to defeat the radiation portals, it will be relatively easy to detect the shielding material because of its density.

Another reason for making this investment is to minimize the disruption associated with targeting containers for portside inspection. The system allows the container to receive a remote preliminary inspection without the container leaving the marine terminal.

By maintaining a record of each container's contents, the port is able to provide government authorities with a forensic tool that can aid a follow-up investigation should a container with a weapon of mass destruction still slip through. This tool would allow authorities to quickly isolate the point in the supply chain where the security compromise took place, thereby minimizing the chance for a port-wide shut-down. By scanning every container, the marine terminals in Hong Kong are well-positioned to indemnify the port for security breaches. As a result, a terrorist would be unable to successfully generate enough fear and uncertainty to warrant disrupting the global trade system.

This low-cost inspection system is being carried out without impeding the operations of busy marine terminals. It could be put in place in every major container port in the world at a cost of $1.5 billion, or approximately $15 per container. Once such a system is operating globally, each nation would be in a position to monitor its exports and to check their imports against the images first collected at the loading port.

The total cost of third-party compliance inspections, deploying "smart" containers, and operating a cargo scanning system such as Hong Kong's is likely to reach $50 to $100 per container depending on the number of containers an importer has and the complexity of its supply chain. Even if the final price tag came in at $100 additional cost per container, it would raise the average price of cargo moved by, say, Wal-Mart or Target by only 0.06%. What importers and consumers are getting in return is the reduced risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack and its economic consequences.

In short, such an investment would allow container security to move from the current "trust, but don't verify" system to a more robust "trust but verify" regime. That would bring benefits to everyone but criminals and terrorists.

Mr.Flynn is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of America the Vulnerable


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You say that because you don't understand the religion of Islam and have probably never taken time to speak to someone who is educated about it or read the Koran. It is not by nature a violent religion, just a violent region.


No I say that because they are a violent religion. A good example is those damn cartoons. There was more Muslim outrage over drawings than there has been for every terrorist act combined.



> No, we should crack down such that terrorists cannot get into flight school. Had taken action against the terrorists instead of just making half hearted promises, I wouldn't mind them. Why you insist on allowing a new passage for terrorists to enter this country of ours, I cannot determine.


Because I dont personally consider this a reduction in security. My only beef with the entire deal is I dont like the outsourcing. Security is not changing hands. Terrorists will have the same 95% chance for success under the UAE as they will under the current British control.



> Do you think that dock workers are sitting around smoking Cuban cigars and wearing tuxedos? They drive prices up because the cost to live is being driven up.


No I dont. But I've got friends that work on the docks in So Cal, and these guys will stretch an unloading operation so they can come in on a saturday for 30 min and collect 8 hrs of pay. And No, they dont drive prices up to stay even with the cost of living, they drive costs up because they think the guy sweeping the floor should make as much as 50k a year. This drives up overhead, which raises prices, and results in the cost of living increase. IMHO Cost of living increases are more a result of people being over paid for menial jobs than any other reason. A good example was a ballot measure in NV to raise minimum wage to 7 dollars an hour. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that in the short term, those making less than $7 will get more money, but in the long term, as prices stabilize, the folks earning $7 will be right back where they were, and the folks that were at $10 are now needing $13 to stay at their previous earning to COL ratio. Unions had their place, but their greed bears a huge amount of blame for outsourcing.

Just ask yourself why the guy gathering receipts and telling you where to park your truck at the local dump needs to make $15 an hour to start when it is a completely mindless, non-skilled, and definately not a back breaking job?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No I say that because they are a violent religion. A good example is those damn cartoons. There was more Muslim outrage over drawings than there has been for every terrorist act combined.


Again, you are simply ignorant of the religion. Do not judge something until you have some grasp on it.



> Because I dont personally consider this a reduction in security. My only beef with the entire deal is I dont like the outsourcing. Security is not changing hands. Terrorists will have the same 95% chance for success under the UAE as they will under the current British control.


Since when is the UK lax on terrorist activity? If I remember correctly they have been our biggest ally in fighting terror. The UAE on the other hand seems to have no problem with terrorists roaming about its territory. Those are complete opposites.

As to the economics, I'll save that for another thread and another time.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT,
You say everyone


> is simply ignorant


maybe you should show a little respect to others of more knowldge and experience and maybe...just maybe you may learn something


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I believe that I am more knowledgeable of the religion of Islam than Gun Owner is, else he would not have said that Islam is by nautre a violent religion. I have many Muslim friends, several of whom I regularly discuss religion and politics with. I have no qualms with recognizing that someone is more knowledgeable about a subject than I am.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Since when is the UK lax on terrorist activity? If I remember correctly they have been our biggest ally in fighting terror. The UAE on the other hand seems to have no problem with terrorists roaming about its territory. Those are complete opposites.


I never said the UK was lax. As stated earlier, only 5% of incomming cargo is inspected. That means Johnny Arab from Dirkhastan has a 95% chance of success. If 5% of british controlled cargo is inspected, and 5% of UAE controled cargo is inspected, then my original statement stands.

Regarding my grasp of the muslim religion, I'd say it works the other way around as well. Untill you can grasp that Islamic fundamentalism is at the core of the current terrorist threat, and that the teachings of the prophet Muhammed preach the killing of non-muslims, then you will never truly understand the reason we are at war. Its all thanks to equally insane Christian crusaders 600 yrs ago killing the blasphemous muslims in the name of god.

I'll freely admit I may be a bit extreme, but to be paranoid and alive sure beats the hell out of optimistic and dead.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Edited out for incorrect information.



> I'll freely admit I may be a bit extreme, but to be paranoid and alive sure beats the hell out of optimistic and dead.


Paranoia can bring rapid, uninformed reaction, which can lead to much more grave consequences than pondering the results of one's actions.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

You're thinking wrong MT. When I say British controled ports, Im referring to the fact that the ports the UAE wishes to take over are currently under British control. Im not refering to ships coming from Britain...

Again, my statement stands.

Extreme paranoia can do just that. But being mildly paranoid makes you better prepard for when the **** hits the fan, because that mild paranoia has made you consider that life isnt always peaches and *****.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You're thinking wrong MT. When I say British controled ports, Im referring to the fact that the ports the UAE wishes to take over are currently under British control. Im not refering to ships coming from Britain...


The idea is that they could hire Al-Queda to work their docks, and with the 95% of cargo that does get through, they could take it to a major city and nail another landmark. I doubt Britain, our biggest ally would hire terrorists to work their ports.



> Extreme paranoia can do just that. But being mildly paranoid makes you better prepard for when the &$#* hits the fan, because that mild paranoia has made you consider that life isnt always peaches and p*$$y.


Either that, or you can become a fanatic who advocates turning the Mid East into a parking lot, or killing all non Muslims.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

This is quickly turning into a pissing contest between you and I....

We just agreed on something in another post, why dont we just agree to disagree on this topic for now. At least untill some other opinions get chimed in here. I bet we have as much chance of convincing each other we're right as we do of winning the next Powerball on a shared ticket.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> In Britain, the terrorists would hopefully be stopped before they could enter onto the ship bound for our ports. In the UAE they may very well be escorted on.


What are you saying? That if the British have the contract for the ports that all ships coming into these ports go through British ports first for security and if the UAE is the contractor then the ships are coming from the UAE? You really don't have a clue do you..........


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Agreed. Let us all try to stay on topic here, this decision may come to effect each and every one of us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> What are you saying? That if the British have the contract for the ports that all ships coming into these ports go through British ports first for security and if the UAE is the contractor then the ships are coming from the UAE? You really don't have a clue do you..........


I misspoke, it has been a long day. I did correct myself in a later message, but they would operate the port, thus giving them the opportunity to hire terrorists to work the docks and let through bomb material, funds, persons, what have you.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

WOW!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I was under a different impression. I thought the owner of the Port contract, whether it be the British or UAE are merely concession owners in that they pay the bills, pier maintenance and upkeep and pocket the profit. The Homeland Security and Coast Guard control the security. The Labor Union does the hiring and firing, and the City Port Authorities set the time tables and control the ships entering and leaving. Am I wrong?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I do believe you are incorrect concerning the hiring policy. Considering that they will run the port, they have the right to hire and fire workers at said port.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

If UAE is holding the purse strings they will put who THEY want in those ports.

Everything I have found on the internet and read says only 5% is checked. That means that if 8500 barrels come in and are unloaded from a ship in a 24 hour period only 425 of those barrels are checked.

Wasn't it Bush who spoke after 911 about putting more money into securing our Ports? Has that been done? Just asking.

Seems to me this is going to make us extremely vulnerable.

This is a middle deal going on with some people once again fattening their wallets.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I do believe you are incorrect concerning the hiring policy. Considering that they will run the port, they have the right to hire and fire workers at said port.


I don't think so but I could be wrong.

"operating port: At an operational port like Charleston, South Carolina, the port authority builds the wharves, owns the cranes and cargo-handling equipment and hires the labor to move cargo in the sheds and yards. A stevedore hires longshore labor to lift cargo between the ship and the dock, where the port's laborers pick it up and bring it to the storage site. (See landlord port.)"

The above is straight from the AAPA:
http://www.aapa-ports.org/industryinfo/glossary.html


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

You boys should lighten up a little, here is some thing to while away your winter blues.(http://quailhuntingschool.com/)


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Incidently Gohon it does not give the definition of splicing the main brace. That is about as nautical as you can get. but then maybe they do not do that anymore, they did when I was going to sea around 60 years ago. :beer:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

The Chinese operate a port or 2 on the western seaboard, should we boot them to.



> I have many Muslim friends, several of whom I regularly discuss religion and politics with


Oh my gosh MT, you don't start this friend thing again.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Special Friend :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

My best friend actually, but can we stay on topic? This story is ongoing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/busin ... minal.html

Dubai pulled the deal for a limited period to give the administration some breathing room. That was probably the best course of action.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Hey adokken, Things have changed since you were sailing. And Moby Dick is no longer a minnow...... :thumb:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT, remmeber that thing I told you about sources.............well the New York Times is one of those sources that's not creditable, sorry!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> MT, remmeber that thing I told you about sources.............well the New York Times is one of those sources that's not creditable, sorry!


Since when is the New York times not a credible source? They've had a few hiccups over the years but I certainly wouldn't discount what they have to say.

As to what the source says, it is all over the news, that was simply the first credible source I spotted.

And because I know you won't accept anything else... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185994,00.html


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

That's better, thank you  Your learning!


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Gohon, Splicing the main brace is an old nautical term for hanging one on.
And I have done my share.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

At first I was very ticked at Bush. I think I kind of jumped the gun. Here is how I understand it now. A British firm had the contract. The UAE bought out that British firm, contracts and all. If I understand correctly any loss of profit the UAE has legal right to ask for compensation. Over the next few years that would mean billions of dollars to U. S. taxpayers.
Also, as I understand we would still control all of the security. If I heard correctly American workers will still be working the docks. This company simply handles logistics for their profit. 
I still don't like the idea, but to avoid the cost incurred I can live with it. Perhaps some special attention will be required at these ports just to make us all feel safe.
Have I got this all right?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> At first I was very ticked at Bush. I think I kind of jumped the gun. Here is how I understand it now. A British firm had the contract. The UAE bought out that British firm, contracts and all. If I understand correctly any loss of profit the UAE has legal right to ask for compensation. Over the next few years that would mean billions of dollars to U. S. taxpayers.


Maybe it is just me, but I'm not going to put a dollar value on American security.



> Also, as I understand we would still control all of the security. If I heard correctly American workers will still be working the docks. This company simply handles logistics for their profit.


As previously stated, we would control security, but the security is very poor. About 5% of cargo coming into our ports is checked. No major overhaul of port security is in sight, so keeping such a country out of our ports is the best method of prevention.

The company would have the right to hire and fire who it pleases. They could have the Taliban working the docks if they chose to do so. This is how I understand the situation.

Finally let it be known that this is not just a company, this is a country we are selling the port to. After the problems they have had with terror in the past, we just can't afford this risk.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The company would have the right to hire and fire who it pleases. They could have the Taliban working the docks if they chose to do so. This is how I understand the situation.


We loose no control over who comes into this country. The above statement is simply chicken little complex.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> We loose no control over who comes into this country. The above statement is simply chicken little complex.


So you don't have a problem with bombs and biological weapons coming into the country, so long as they don't bring people in?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was under the impression we were talking about the Taliban that you brought up. Lets not play games, did you not see where I said who not what?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

MT you are just flat wrong when you say the UAE would have the right to hire and fire whom it pleases. The only people they would have the right to hire and fire would be their own company white collar worker that may visit their office for operational oversight. Part of the package according to a senior advisor of the Home Land Security Office said today that part of the agreement with UAE was anyone the UAE wanted to send to American shores must first go through a special, and separate background check by the FBI and Home land Security before a visa is issued. In other words the UAE is not going to get a stack of visa's to hand out to anyone. Like Plainsman I'm still very watchful of this and a little on edge but I don't see the bogeyman that some are screaming about. The UAE without question has a shady past but so does Pakistan but both have been very cooperative and helpful in our fight on terrorism these past three years. Just in the last two years it was the UAE that arrested, detained and eventually turned over to the US several top Al-Quaida members. If congress wants to pass a law that says no foreign country may operate our ports then I'm all for that. That would mean the Brits, Canada or anyone........ But to tell a country that just because you are Arab, you're out is the height of profiling some of you people complain about all the time. Make up you mind. Along with Turkey and Pakistan the UAE has been one of our most important allies in that part of the world. We slap them down without changing the law and we will in my opinion do far more damage to ourselves than what some worry about now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If congress wants to pass a law that says no foreign country may operate our ports then I'm all for that. That would mean the Brits, Canada or anyone........ But to tell a country that just because you are Arab, you're out is the height of profiling some of you people complain about all the time.


The British company was just that, an independant company. The UAE company is run by the country of the UAE. This has nothing to do with being Arab or what have you, this has to do with security. If it was Chechnya who was trying to buy the ports I would be just as leary.

As to whether or not the UAE can hire or fire workers, I need some proof. Everything I have heard has given me the impression that they will have full power over the port with the exception of security.



> Make up you mind. Along with Turkey and Pakistan the UAE has been one of our most important allies in that part of the world.


You cannot toss out the history. The UAE sided with the Taliban before, and they could go back. Just because they are friendly today is no indication of what they will be five years from now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The UAE sided with the Taliban before


 So did we.



> has nothing to do with being Arab or what have you, this has to do with security.


Likewise with profiling in airports.



> If it was Chechnya who was trying to buy the ports I would be just as leary.


Oh, my gosh.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Quote:
> If it was Chechnya who was trying to buy the ports I would be just as leary.
> Oh, my gosh.


We were discussing ethnicity, not religion, hence the word Arab.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe I have my countries mixed up. When you said you wouldn't trust Chechnya I though this was where the terrorists killed all the school kids. Logically it follows that if the terrorists hate them, then they will not aid the terrorists. Follow my reasoning?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Not at all.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

USATODAY 2/21/06............... more truth coming out. Kind of looks like there are a few American officials working or had worked at the top of Dubai.

By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
The United Arab Emirates firm that has a deal to operate terminals at six U.S. port cities is a major player in an industry increasingly controlled by foreign companies.

Dubai Ports World is owned by the tiny nation on the Persian Gulf and is headed by a sultan educated in the United States.

It operates terminals in the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Germany, Romania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, India, China, Malaysia, South Korea and Australia, according to its website.

Its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. is what has Congress urging an investigation.

P&O, as it is known in the shipping world, is a British company that operates terminals in New York, Newark, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans. Dubai Ports World's purchase of P&O would give it a significant presence in the U.S. maritime trade market.

The Dubai company would not control all the shipments through those ports but would operate terminals at each location - up to 30% of the terminals at any one port, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Security for U.S. ports rests with law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others. The Dubai Ports World terminals would have to comply with all security measures imposed on U.S. ports.

Dubai Ports World's chairman is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who was educated at Temple University in Philadelphia. He is a top adviser to the emir of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, who controls the company through the state-owned Ports, Customs and Free Zones Authority of Dubai.

Under the rule of the al-Maktoum family, Dubai has emerged as a financial and commercial power. With oil reserves smaller than some Arab neighbors, the emirate has focused its investments in tourism, shipping and trade.

Shipping has long been a global business with international operators, and that trend has accelerated as international trade has boomed in the past 10 to 15 years.

Foreign companies are estimated to control more than 30% of U.S. port terminals already, and the operations that Dubai Ports World will assume were already among that number.

Foreign concerns operate most ports outside the USA, so shipments coming into the USA are generally handled by foreign port operations on at least one end.

Dubai Ports World has several Americans among its top executives. The retiring chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, is a Yale graduate who served in the Navy. General Counsel George Dalton came to the Dubai company from CSX World Terminals, which Dubai Ports World acquired in 2004.

Dubai Ports World acquired the port operations of the American rail company CSX in 2004 for $1.15 billion. John Snow, President Bush's treasury secretary, was chairman of CSX before joining the administration in 2003.

A senior executive of Dubai Ports World in charge of its European and Latin American port operations, David Sanborn, was named by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. The agency advocates for the U.S. maritime industry under the Department of Transportation.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Out of 77 votes in 2004 at the UN the UAE voted against the US position 62 times, with us 10 time and 2 they abstained I might have these numbers slight off but not by more than 1 or 2 votes. SO they really are not our great friends.

You can't trust the Arabs.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

In early 1999 the CIA learned that Osama could be found at a desert camp in Afghan.The US Military were planning a strike. But the strike was called off because members of the UAE royal family were visiting BinLaden. Because of the relationship between the UAE and Osama Bin Forgotten we lost a opportunity to kill him before 9-11. So now we are told that we should trust our ports to the UAE.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522484/


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I wouldn't necessarily call the votes in the UN as meaningful if we don't know what the votes were about. Expecting someone to rubber stamp everything we do is also not a friend. But since they let us use their air bases for strikes, since our war ships are allowed into their ports for armament and loading and since they have captured terrorist for us, yes I would consider that as being or allie. All I'm saying is this fear for the safety of our ports because of this deal has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. It may even come to pass that Dubai will be so worried about anything happening while they have the contract, that they probable will step up their own security just so fingers won't be pointed at them in the event something does happen. Who's to say&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Dubai has agreed to a 45 day stand down so congress can look things over so let's see what comes out of it. FYI the President has no legal control over this deal. The only way it can actually be stopped is for congress to act and change the laws.

adokken that story about a UAE prince being in the area where Bin Laden was at, and the strike called off happened on Clinton's watch. Who's to say the choice Bush may have made. Yep, we did miss the chance to get him but lets put the blame where it rightfully belongs.....with Clinton.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon I could understand some disagreement but I don't believe we are on the wrong side of UN issues at that ratio and in my opinion if we don't get support from allies on issues they aren't real allies.

heres another story about the possibility of monetary corruption fueling this deal,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=49012


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Wow....you talk about a stretch and desperation. Now for some reason a story about brother Bush's failed business dealings, business ties, and his.....lets see, how did the article put that...oh yeah, messy divorce ending a 23 year marriage with Sharon Bush. That's it, that simply has to be it. That divorce just had to be the leading reason for this deal to go through and after all he is the families black sheep according to the article. Never mind that he is not on any of the boards that has oversight or approval authority or any connection with this story in the first place. Never mind the fact the President of the United States WAS NOT involved with this transaction or the fact the President of the United States only learned about the deal through news paper reports like the rest of us. But now it seems the operative word here or new spin I should say is corruption. It's now corruption that is the moving force folks. Blind and ignorant hatred for the Japanese 60 years ago had us locking them up in camps. Now blind hatred for another race is once again bringing out the worst in people. What's the next excuse, Barbara Bush was having a affair with the Sultan of the UAE....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06057/660934.stm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... 06_CK.html

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006 11:03 p.m. EST
Nuclear Reactors Top Dubai Ports' Cargo List

Nuclear reactors are among the most significant U.S. exports shipped out of five of the six ports slated for takeover by a Dubai company next week.

According to U.S. Transportation Department numbers cited Thursday by Newsday, the two "top products" shipped in and out of the Ports of New York and New Jersey are "mineral fuel [and] nuclear reactors." The New York-New Jersey ports handle 4,862 ships each year.

The Port of Baltimore processes 1,747 ships each year, where the top two products, according to Newsday, are "vehicles [and] nuclear reactors."

The Port of Miami unloads 1,247 ships annually. There the two top products are "apparel [and] nuclear reactors."

The Port of New Orleans processes 4,612 ships each year, where the top cargo is reportedly "machinery [and] nuclear reactors."

Of the six ports slated for takeover by Dubai Ports World, only Philadelphia does not count nuclear reactors as one of its "top products," with "precious stones [and] mineral fuel" leading the cargo list there.

Shipping numbers cited by Newsday are for 2004.

Lots of ying and yang on this issue, isn't there


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

ying and yang have been with us for a long time.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... HCVK01.DTL

APL, which manages terminals in Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle and Alaska, is owned by the NOL Group, which is majority owned by the Singapore government.

The Chinese government owns part of a company that operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.

That company, Cosco Container Lines, a division of China Cosco, caused a stir similar to the current one back in 1998.

Cosco ships had been calling on the Port of Long Beach for many years, using a public terminal. In the late 1990s, it wanted to build its own terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station, says Howard Finkel, a senior vice president with Cosco.

The deal raised national-security concerns and Congress passed a bill that effectively scuttled it.

A few years later, other tenants at the port vacated space and Cosco was able to build its own terminal, says Art Wong, public information office for the Port of Long Beach.

That terminal is operated by a joint venture between Cosco and a U.S. company, Stevedoring Services of America. "Cosco is the majority lease holder with 51 percent, says Wong.

Terminal operators typically contract with local unions to hire longshoremen to load and unload ships.

"If you go down to (P&O's terminals in New Orleans), even though it's a British company, you're not going to hear anybody who talks with a British accent," says Bonura. "They're all people from Louisiana."

Shipping, by its nature, is a global industry and getting more so.

Virtually all U.S.-flag carriers have been acquired by foreign ones, says Rex Sherman, director of research and information services for the American Association of Port Authorities.

Security at U.S. ports is handled by a variety of agencies.

"As far as the water side is concerned, it's a federal responsibility, vested in the Coast Guard," says Sherman.

"On the land side, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection screens what goes in and out of the country," he adds. "The facility operator is responsible for the physical security of the terminal they own."

Bernard Groseclose, chairman of the American Association of Port Authorities, says he doesn't think the takeover of P&O by a Dubai company "is a big deal from a security standpoint."

He says the Marine Transportation Security Act "sets up very specific regulations as to security requirements in U.S. ports," and these regulations are the same from port to port, no matter who is operating the terminals.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Theres lots of pro and con, my gut tells me not to allow them to control the ports. My brain tells me its just another big business going along as usaul.

I don't trust the arabs even the ones that claim to be our allies.

Even if they are good ones you have to wonder if Al quaida will figure out a way to threaten them or bribe them into cooperation somehow.

I guess I would rather error on the side of saftey. The down side is it gives the bad arabs the ability to say we really don't follow the principles we claim to support.

I sure don't understand why so many supposed uppel level people in the Bush administration profess to have not known about it unilt some talk show host starts complaining about it. At a minimum thats was really foolish, they should of expected something like this to be questioned after 9-11 and had their ducks in a row, they appaerntly don't and that makes me question how well this has been looked at and who is making the decisions.

Never underestimate the power of corruption and that could easily be hidden somewhere at the lower levels of the decision making chain which apparently didn't bother to tell upper management.

Something stinks, maybe. And maybees deserve a strong second look at a time of war.

I really don't like anyone other than us working in our ports period. Not the Arabs and not the Chinese either and thats already happening.

There is a strong argument that the more we involve opponents in our economy it lessens the chance they will do anything to damage the money flow. I think that would work well with the Chinese, I doubt the Islamic jihadist Fanatic would care.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob, while I agree with most everything you just said I think we have to put some trust in our allies. As Reagan said, trust but verify. If we are going to take on world terrorism we need allies in that part of the world. It's going to be interesting to see what happens to this bill introduced yesterday to stop all ports from being run by foreign companies. With probable about 90% of our ports now already under foreign contracts, are we just going to shut them down until a American company takes over? I saw one senator yesterday claiming that the bill only specifies companies that is foreign government owned. If he thinks the Chinese government doesn't in reality control the Chinese company running the Long Beach port he has his head in the sand. Seems like every time something like this happens the knee jerk reaction of congress just makes things worse for all of us.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Unfortunately congress is full of uninformed corrupt blowhards, and that is the American peoples fault. 95% of us don't even know who represents us or anything about their positions. Positions which are frequently determined by the finger in the wind public opinion method, instead of doing the right thing, based on the good of the country as a whole.

Darn sure is frustrating.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 53,00.html

Bush really lucked out here.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2079153,00.html
> Bush really lucked out here.


There was no luck involved at all. 


> Further I think two things will now happen. One Bush will figure out a way to get himself out of the corner he has boxed himself in and that will probable come about with the UAE speaking up and saying they will agree to further investigation of the contract and pull out if asked. And two, congress will put up a bill to not allow any foreign country to have dealings with our ports. Either way I don't think in the end the UAE will get the contract.


I made this prediction Feb-22 when this mess started.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Looks like you were correct Gohon UAE is pulling the plug on the deal!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well Gohon that was good foresight. Do you see repercussions from the action congress has taken? Some say that we may find a harder time docking our navy ships in their facilities. The more I learned the more it appeared that this group was acting as an ally in the war on terrorism, but like Bob I am skeptical of all these mid east groups. I just hope we haven't pooped in our nest.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I think there will be repercussions in the Arab world, at least in the propaganda area for the short term. The terrorist will have a field day with this, which from what I have read of newspaper accounts in Arab countries has already started. This will hurt us in those countries that were teetering on the fence as to which side they want to fall, help the US and allies or those that want us to fall. As to the UAE I doubt it matters that much to the government there as this was just a business deal that didn't work out. Don't think their civilian population will look at it that way though.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

They need us just as much as we need them so I don't think it will matter in the total scheme of things.

We need their ports to have some control of the region, they need our protection from the rest of the Muslim jihadist savages


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So what's next? The people to watch here are the Democrats. They were the ones that all of a sudden became hawks on national security.  

Now that they have made their political hay, will they go right back to being against the War On Terror? Probably so. After all, they never really cared one bit about port security. :eyeroll:

It was all about smelling an opportunity to get back at the administration.

I wish the republicans were smart enough to combine the vote against the port deal with a vote to support the "domestic "spying on phone calls to AL quaida. That would of expsoed the Dems for what they were really about.

Another politics vs substance phony issue to divide all of us


----------

