Death wish

[OkeeDon]

Our local newspaper fetures two colunists each day on the editorial page. One is titled "On the Left" and the other is titled "On the Right". The columnists rotate, but one is always liberal and one is always conservative.

Today, a column was entitled, "Port sale: Death Wish 2006". It starts off,

"The Greeks and Sigmund Freud had a name for what may ail President George W. Bush: Thanatos. The death wish.
"Thanatos was the Greek personification of death, which Freud later expanded to describe man's "death instinct", or the unconsciouswish to abandon life's struggles and return to a state of quiet repose.
"That would be the grave, as Freud envisioned man's endpoint. But, for Bush, the metaphor extends only as far as a nice, quiet ranch in Crawford Texas...How else to explain this administration's inexorable march toward political death?
"The final throes of Bush's journey towards self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational right to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates..."

There's more, but the basic thrust of the message is the folly of allowing this sale, and ends, "Survival now depends on fitter minds."

So, what's new, you ask? Isn't this the same old liberal claptrap you hear all the time and ignore because you don't like the source?

Not this time. This time, it was the column, "On the Right." It was written by conservative commentator Kathleen Parker from the very conservative Orlando Sentinal.

All I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to admit that I voted for him...

 

[Av8r3400]

I did vote for him, he was far better than the alternative.

That being said, Don, I will be your biggest friend on this subject. I don't know what kind of BS is going on behind closed doors (or whatever) to make him think this is a good idea.

It is the next Harret Miers debachle in my opinion. After all the only one on his side right now is Jimmy Carter.

 

[bczoom]

What am I missing on this issue?

All the security is and will continue to be under the purvue of the US.
The Coast Guard is responsible for physical security of the ports.
The Customs Service is responsible for the cargo.

How will security (which appears to be the major point) be changed?

 

[Melensdad]

What am I missing on this issue?

All the security is and will continue to be under the purvue of the US.
The Coast Guard is responsible for physical security of the ports.
The Customs Service is responsible for the cargo.

How will security (which appears to be the major point) be changed?

The security will not change.

What we have here is a classic case of RACISM where people are simply opposed to an ARAB owning something.

What do you think would happen if a JEWISH company tried to buy an oil company that operated in Kuwait? I propose the same thing we are seeing here! It is called RACISM.

Now there are some side issues which I have not seen addressed too often and those involve the fact that Dubai (sp?) does have ties to some of our enemies and does have ties to some of our friends. The private company is in fact owned by the nation of Dubai so it would be a foreign nation owning the port operations (but not the port security, etc). The ONLY possible legitimate arguement I can see is that the royal family of Dubai would make some profits off of freight traffic here, and it is possible that some of that profit might be used to fund some activity that we would oppose.

 

[Av8r3400]

Sharing my view.

Interesting article on something that is also not being discussed about this topic. These are Military Ports, too.

I hardly think turning over control of the management of major US ports to a forign government is racist position. I would be opposed to this if it were a German, French or British company, too. I am not a racist, but I am a nationalist.

(still luv ya, tho Bob. )

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I agree with Bob. Ideally, it shouldn't matter the nationality of who owns the ports. If security is the issue then we need to make sure we have the laws and manpower to perform the job regardless of who owns the business operations.

While I do agree that this may be close to political suicide (or at least a serious self inflicted wound) and it certainly gives Bush's enemies lots of ammo for their rhetoric.

 

[Melensdad]

Sharing my view.

Interesting article on something that is also not being discussed about this topic. These are Military Ports, too.

I hardly think turning over control of the management of major US ports to a forign government is racist position. I would be opposed to this if it were a German, French or British company, too. I am not a racist, but I am a nationalist.

(still luv ya, tho Bob. )

THESE PORTS ARE CURRENTLY OPERATED BY A BRITISH COMPANY!!! These ports are NOT operated by the US Government, nor are they currently operated by a US company.

 

[BoneheadNW]

Bob, I have to agree with Av8r. I would be against this deal even if it was Israel buying the posts, although in thinking about it you know Israel would probably have even more reason to make sure the ports were secure.

I also just read that Bush was unaware of the deal until after it was even made. How could this be? Note that there is an obvious joke here with Bush and "unaware", but I am not going for it.
Bone

 

[OkeeDon]

I see no racism in this situation. What I see is that port operations have been operated by private companies in the past, but this "company" is owned by a foreign nation, not a private company. The company that is being sold is British, but not associated with the British government. The company that is making the purchase is owned by a foreign government.

That's enough for me to be against it. Private companies are not in the habit of making decisions for political reasons. Their bottom line is to make a profit. They would be unlikely to make policy changes that would undercut their profit in order to fulfill a political agenda.

A company owned by a government, on the other hand, is very likely to set aside profit in order to achieve a political goal. What would be that goal? I don't have any earthly idea, at this point. All I know is that I do not trust a foreign government -- any government of any nation -- to be unbiased in the decisions they make about operations. What decisions could they make that would hurt us? Again, I don't know. But, more importantly, I don't want to have to know. I don't want them in the position of possibility of disruption, no matter what it is.

As far as our present security arrangements at ports, including the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, it's largely a joke. Only 5% of all shipments are given any type of inspection. I just walked through customs yesterday, and my carry luggage was not subjected to Xray, nor did I have to pass through a metal detector. There was more security each time we returned to our ship than there was in entering the United States. The security is so full of holes, it's an ideal setup for a government that wanted to harm the United States. If they control the port operations, and security is full of holes, they can bascially do whatever they choose.

Again, foreign private companies are not likely to harm us; it would be like biting the hand that feeds them. Foreign governments, however, are another thing altogether. Even if they are our "ally" today, that could change overnight.

We should NEVER allow ourselves to be in that position.

 

[OkeeDon]

...and it certainly gives Bush's enemies lots of ammo for their rhetoric.

If it's true, is it rhetoric? Why is it not rhetoric if it comes from Bush's friends?

 

[OkeeDon]

THESE PORTS ARE CURRENTLY OPERATED BY A BRITISH COMPANY!!! These ports are NOT operated by the US Government, nor are they currently operated by a US company.

Sheesh, you don't have to get so excited. I'm well aware that P&O is a British private company. The important fact here is that The purchaser IS a government-owned company, and everyone should be aware that governments often follow their own agenda.

 

[riptides]

Arab = Bad
Persian = Bad
Globalization = Bad

Sounds like frigging whining to me... where is the cheese?

-Mike Z.

 

[riptides]

IForeign governments, however, are another thing altogether. Even if they are our "ally" today, that could change overnight.

We should NEVER allow ourselves to be in that position.

You do know one of the biggest integrators of defence systems and contract wins is a foreign government. So how do you feel about having our systems middleware in foreign hands?

-Mike Z.

 

[jdwilson44]

I see no racism in this situation. What I see is that port operations have been operated by private companies in the past, but this "company" is owned by a foreign nation, not a private company. The company that is being sold is British, but not associated with the British government. The company that is making the purchase is owned by a foreign government.

That's enough for me to be against it. Private companies are not in the habit of making decisions for political reasons. Their bottom line is to make a profit. They would be unlikely to make policy changes that would undercut their profit in order to fulfill a political agenda.

A company owned by a government, on the other hand, is very likely to set aside profit in order to achieve a political goal. What would be that goal? I don't have any earthly idea, at this point. All I know is that I do not trust a foreign government -- any government of any nation -- to be unbiased in the decisions they make about operations. What decisions could they make that would hurt us? Again, I don't know. But, more importantly, I don't want to have to know. I don't want them in the position of possibility of disruption, no matter what it is.

As far as our present security arrangements at ports, including the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, it's largely a joke. Only 5% of all shipments are given any type of inspection. I just walked through customs yesterday, and my carry luggage was not subjected to Xray, nor did I have to pass through a metal detector. There was more security each time we returned to our ship than there was in entering the United States. The security is so full of holes, it's an ideal setup for a government that wanted to harm the United States. If they control the port operations, and security is full of holes, they can bascially do whatever they choose.

Again, foreign private companies are not likely to harm us; it would be like biting the hand that feeds them. Foreign governments, however, are another thing altogether. Even if they are our "ally" today, that could change overnight.

We should NEVER allow ourselves to be in that position.

There may be racism at work here but frankly I don't care. I am 100% against this happening and would frankly like to see the governers of the states in question call out the National Guard to seize control of the port if Bush can't pull his head out of his butt and oppose this. I don't know why US ports are owned by foreign companies of any form in the first place - I guess it is all part of the outsourcing of everything here in the US. Like OkeeDon pointed out the British company was not owned by the goverment - the Dubai company is. I think we have all had enough experience lately with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. to see how companies can be manipulated from the top. Who does the security at the ports is irrelevant. Whatever company owns the ports has the right to put their people in charge of certain aspects of that port - which means they now have the wherewithal to get around the security in that port. Since most traffic comes in thru containers it is an entirely likely scenario that somebody could put a nuclear bomb in a container - a container carried by a foreign flagged ship. That ship then comes into port and the container is "lost" in the port somewhere so that the Coast Guard and the Customs Service don't see it. For more reference on how this could happen go watch the HBO series "The Wire" from a couple of seasons ago. I am sure that it is entirely possible to manipulate the process so that at the very least a container could be brought into the US - even if it never left the port - in such a way that no US authorities would know anything about it.

And this would be much easier if you actually owned the port facilities and the workers who were in charge of moving said containers. Owning a port could be said to the last piece of the puzzle to get a nuclear weapon smuggled into the US - this is not fantasy - it is pretty much what I would do myself if I was going to attempt such a thing.

And remember we are talking about nuclear weapons here - it doesnt necessarily have to leave the port to do real damage to a city - it just has to be close enough.

 

[Melensdad]

Sheesh, you don't have to get so excited. I'm well aware that P&O is a British private company. The important fact here is that The purchaser IS a government-owned company, and everyone should be aware that governments often follow their own agenda.

Don,

• First, I have never stated my opinion on the transaction, people are making assumptions based on my explanations above.
• Second, I did state my opinion on the issue of racism, which I do believe is valid in this case.
• Third, my enlarged text was in response to a prior post saying that he would be opposed if any foreign entity owned the port operations, and even cited the British, who in fact are the people in control now.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

If it's true, is it rhetoric? Why is it not rhetoric if it comes from Bush's friends?

I never said the rhetoric was one sided. I simply pointed out that it wasn't a politically "smart" move on Bush's part to provide more ammo to his enemies. I can see how this will get twisted in all sorts of ways.

PB

 

[OkeeDon]

You do know one of the biggest integrators of defence systems and contract wins is a foreign government.

No, I guess I don't know that. Would you explain further?

 

[DaveNay]

• Third, my enlarged text was in response to a prior post saying that he would be opposed if any foreign entity owned the port operations, and even cited the British, who in fact are the people in control now.

That doesn't change the fact that once aware that the ports are currently operated by any foreign company, you are still allowed to be opposed to it. If this issue had come to light even in the middle of the contract with the British based company, I would be opposed to the contract, and would encourage re-negotiation and possible voiding of that contract, to be awarded to (and only open for consideration) a domestically incorporated and owned company.

 

[OkeeDon]

I never said the rhetoric was one sided. I simply pointed out that it wasn't a politically "smart" move on Bush's part to provide more ammo to his enemies. I can see how this will get twisted in all sorts of ways.

Remember, the quote with which I started this topic, most of the news reports I've read, the articled by Frank Gaffney cited by Av8r3400, and almost everything else I've read or heard about this situation are being said or written by folks who are -- or were, at the last election -- Bush's "friends", not the traditional enemies.

 

[riptides]

No, I guess I don't know that. Would you explain further?

BAE systems. British Aerospace -
5 continents
90,000 people
Largest European defence company
Top 10 US defence company
Order book £51.2 billion
£14.8 billion annual sales
£1.2 billion annual R&D spend
Top 10 at the pentagon!!!!!

-Mike Z.

 

[Melensdad]

That doesn't change the fact that once aware that the ports are currently operated by any foreign company, you are still allowed to be opposed to it.

To that point I agree, but I suspect that 80% of the population of the US would not have its collective panties in a bunch about a British company buying a port operation, while it seems like 80% of the population of the US does have its collective panties in a bunch over an Arab company doing the same.

 

[bczoom]

A company owned by a government, on the other hand, is very likely to set aside profit in order to achieve a political goal. What would be that goal? I don't have any earthly idea, at this point. All I know is that I do not trust a foreign government -- any government of any nation -- to be unbiased in the decisions they make about operations.

Don,

Doesn't this point and the rest of your post pretty much summarize.... China?

I'm more leary of China than the UAE.

Also, if the UAE does get the contract, at any time, we could sieze their assets as well as the whole port if we even suspect wrongdoing.

 

[OkeeDon]

Don,

Doesn't this point and the rest of your post pretty much summarize.... China?

I'm more leary of China than the UAE.

Also, if the UAE does get the contract, at any time, we could sieze their assets as well as the whole port if we even suspect wrongdoing.

Yes, you're correct. I'm extremely leary of China, as well.

Ironically, the last time this port stuff was raised as an issue was in 1999, when Hutchison took over operations of the ports at Balboa and Colon, Panama, at either end of the canal, thus giving them effective control of the canal. Hutchison is a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army.

Of course, at that time, the folks raising the biggest stink about the issue were conservatives who were trying mightily to create ties between China and the Clinton adminstration, even though Clinton had nothing to do with the canal turnover or operations. It's amusing to watch the same congressional conservatives now tip-toeing around their President, trying to avoid the obvious connections between big oil money, Bush and Cheney and their Arab buddies. But, that's not the subject I raised.

 

[OkeeDon]

BAE systems. British Aerospace - ...

I looked up BAE Systems. They're a private company. The only government involvement is a single "Golden Share" of stock, worth one British Pound, and held by the secretary of something or other in the British government, that gives the government a veto over certain types of takeovers by other governments. They are a private company, with a North American subsidiary, BAE Systems NA. The company was formed by a merger between British Aerospace, some part of General Electric, and some other private entities. This is no different than Daimler owning Chrysler.

You do know one of the biggest integrators of defence systems and contract wins is a foreign government.

No, I guess I don't know about any foreign government as you describe. Would you explain?

 

[HGM]

I have to say, I see the racisim tie but in this case I dont care either..

I voted for Bush because he was far more qualified than his counterparts. I have been impressed on how things have gone (as a whole).. Like I have mentioned before, nothing can be flawless as no one can make all the right decisions in anyone elses mind.. I do disagree with him on a few topics, but do not regret voting for him..

Back to this matter, I COMPLETELY dissagree that we should allow this to happen.. Part of my feelings can be blamed on ignorance of the "whole" deal, but I'm not even comfortable with a British company controling our ports.. This country is in a vulnerable possition right now, we need to be on the defensive.. Yes we can trust our British friends, and likely our Arab friends, but I liken it to lending your chainsaw to your neighbor.. He may take good care of it and handle it correctly, but its not his, therfore he may not be as conciencious(?) as he should.. I just wouldnt do it...

We have a large Arab/Musslim population in this country and have good relations with some of their countries.. The fact of the matter is that even though Saudi Arabia is our alli, Bin Ladden is of Saudi discent.. It would be entirely too easy for our enemies to infiltrate our ports if their families owned and controlled them...

 

[Big Dog]

THESE PORTS ARE CURRENTLY OPERATED BY A BRITISH COMPANY!!! These ports are NOT operated by the US Government, nor are they currently operated by a US company.

Even so, it will cost the American taxpayer due to the fact it's an Arab company buying and the pressure that more security will be required!

JMO...........

 

[ddrane2115]

All I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to admit that I voted for him...[/QUOTE]

you must have voted for the loser. Dont get mad Don, I am with you on this port thing.................I want American guns on those ports, and I dont care what race they are used by.............

 

[nixon]

Even so, it will cost the American taxpayer due to the fact it's an Arab company buying and the pressure that more security will be required!

JMO...........

No argument meant here at all, but why do You say that ? Port security is (or should be ) what it is (security ),regardless of the company that operates the port.
Our port security should be effective regardless of who runs our shipping ports .

 

[Big Dog]

No argument meant here at all, but why do You say that ? Port security is (or should be ) what it is (security ),regardless of the company that operates the port.
Our port security should be effective regardless of who runs our shipping ports .

First, I take no insinuation of an agruement
Second, JMO means Just My Opinion
Third, I believe that because it is an Arab company, pressure will be placed on the renewed DHS to allot more funds.

Never stated it as fact but it's already costing us because politicians are spending time on it!

Peace brother...........

 

[nixon]

First, I take no insinuation of an agruement
Second, JMO means Just My Opinion
Third, I believe that because it is an Arab company, pressure will be placed on the renewed DHS to allot more funds.

Never stated it as fact but it's already costing us because politicians are spending time on it!

Peace brother...........

First.. Nor did I
Second JMO .. even I Know that
Third .. WHY ?
Politicians don't need facts to spend time ,or money
Peace .