OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and the
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There is
absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our nation's
security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true nature
of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of their
banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious causes, the
fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our ports and not
a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various ports'
management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States may
very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their customary
secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed acceptable.
There are means of publicly vetting these important issues without
compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for a matter
of such great public concern, complete secrecy is counterproductive
regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and public review. In this
instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater than the risk of sensitive
exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of current
hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and media spheres
(both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is buying
a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the various
ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to be sure)
and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases offered by the
states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in charge
of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the type
of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected by
the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely a
non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment to
dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by the
American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to become a
longshoreman has had to either go through the International Longshoreman's
Association on the East Coast or the International Longshoremen &
Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the union is no easy
task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any attempt by the UAE
(or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a non-union member on
the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down to
the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's Port
Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the lifted
beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out loud,
"You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to observe
the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride in what
they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to happen to
their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly. These are the
men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by the UAE's DP
World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The idea
that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly container
into a port is an idea founded without understanding the disconnect between
the port operator and the inbound inspections system employed by the USCG
and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have if
we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice president,
Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong.
I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or
feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities and
pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing to the
wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly racially
profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should disqualify them
from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously. With little doubt and
much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East, a
region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the future
safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede one
of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be certain
and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not necessarily
based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a port operator.
With a longer and more detailed public look at both the role of a port
operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become clear that this is
not at all the security risk that it first seemed to be. But, to assume
otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without such further review is
wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest on
The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make an
important security decision with long term implications. We cannot possibly
make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while hyperventilating
into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and
the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There
is absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our
nation's security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this
consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true
nature of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of
their banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious
causes, the fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our
ports and not a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various
ports' management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States may very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their
customary secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed
acceptable. There are means of publicly vetting these important issues
without compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for
a matter of such great public concern, complete secrecy is
counterproductive regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and
public review. In this instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater
than the risk of sensitive exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of
current hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and
media spheres (both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is
buying a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the
various ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to
be sure) and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases
offered by the states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in
charge of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the
type of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected
by the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely
a non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment
to dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by
the American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to
become a longshoreman has had to either go through the International
Longshoreman's Association on the East Coast or the International
Longshoremen & Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the
union is no easy task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any
attempt by the UAE (or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a
non-union member on the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen
onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down
to the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's
Port Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the
lifted beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out
loud, "You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to
observe the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride
in what they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to
happen to their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly.
These are the men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by
the UAE's DP World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks
afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The
idea that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly
container into a port is an idea founded without understanding the
disconnect between the port operator and the inbound inspections system
employed by the USCG and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have
if we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice
president, Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's
wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or
wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities
and pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing
to the wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports
after the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly
racially profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should
disqualify them from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously.
With little doubt and much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East,
a region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the
future safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede
one of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be
certain and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not
necessarily based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a
port operator. With a longer and more detailed public look at both the
role of a port operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become
clear that this is not at all the security risk that it first seemed to
be. But, to assume otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without
such further review is wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest
on The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make
an important security decision with long term implications. We cannot
possibly make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while
hyperventilating into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/



Nice one. His last 2 paragraphs say it all.

Looks like the Senate is acting responsibly, although I disagree with a
timetable for the review as Hillary suggests.

======================================
From: http://tinyurl.com/o8t2y

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p_world _news
Senators from both parties said a state-owned Dubai company's takeover of
facilities in six major U.S. seaports should be delayed, and President
George W. Bush's top political adviser suggested the administration would
welcome having more time to persuade lawmakers.

Congress needs more time to review the deal, said John Warner of Virginia,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrat Hillary Clinton
of New York said legislation would be offered next week to order a further
review of at least 45 days. ``That may be the first step to try and
understand this matter,'' she said.

Their comments capped a 90-minute briefing of the panel by Bush
administration officials who approved the $6.8 billion sale of London-based
port operator Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, based
in the United Arab Emirates.

DP World would gain control of most operations at ports in New York, New
Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans through the
acquisition of P&O. DP World spokesman Andrew Rice said today the company
plans to complete the purchase by March 2. Bush said after a Cabinet meeting
today that the deal doesn't pose a security risk to the U.S.

======================

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of
several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one
daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why now wait for the facts Harry?

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of
several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one
daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.


If there is any behind-the-scenes negotiating taking place, it most
certainly has more to do with the UAE's geographically strategic importance,
than any potential money made from the deal.

Consider that just 2 weeks ago, Ahmadinejad threatened to shut down the
Strait of Hormuz in the event that Iran is attacked. The Strait is less
than 20 miles across, and it's nearly impossible to protect oil tankers as
they move through the 1-mile wide shipping channel. They're susceptible to
suicide gunboats, and Iranian silkworm missiles.

Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop the
silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The only
country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a defense
system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.

More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the
next few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the
skids have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why not wait for the facts Harry?

Maybe tomorrow...

Maybe tomorrow? Will we wake up tomorrow to read another slanderous and
untrue report, this time about Bush and the UAE schemed up by the Democrats?

Harry, all folks want are facts........unbiased and sans political bias from
either side.

This issue is too important to make it political.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection
Serve Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.

More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the
next few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the
skids have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why not wait for the facts Harry?

Maybe tomorrow...

Maybe tomorrow? Will we wake up tomorrow to read another slanderous and
untrue report, this time about Bush and the UAE schemed up by the
Democrats?

Harry, all folks want are facts........unbiased and sans political bias
from either side.

This issue is too important to make it political.

There is nothing political about the following:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be taken
against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a small
island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy it, and
should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island will be
critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in the
war on terror.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.


If there is any behind-the-scenes negotiating taking place, it most
certainly has more to do with the UAE's geographically strategic
importance, than any potential money made from the deal.

Consider that just 2 weeks ago, Ahmadinejad threatened to shut down the
Strait of Hormuz in the event that Iran is attacked. The Strait is less
than 20 miles across, and it's nearly impossible to protect oil tankers as
they move through the 1-mile wide shipping channel. They're susceptible
to suicide gunboats, and Iranian silkworm missiles.

Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

Sounds like a very plausible explanation.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, *and*
the UAE.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.



The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in
the war on terror.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


Yes. We also have military bases in the UAE as of last July...which makes
the UAE a critical ally should we come to blows with Iran.

The port deal was done to ensure that the UAE remains cooperative when the
shooting starts.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, *and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in Iraq.
But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to let the 4th
ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to let
the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to
stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby.
The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to
let the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.




Not if they cannot unite. If things get worse you will see an uproar over
here to get the hell out. Many who once supported the effort will change
their mind. I will be part of that group.

My friends son is now on his way to the NC. He finished his tour at the
right time.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to
stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby.
The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such
a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to
let the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.




Not if they cannot unite. If things get worse you will see an uproar over
here to get the hell out. Many who once supported the effort will change
their mind. I will be part of that group.

My friends son is now on his way to NC. He finished his tour at the
right time.


edit

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in
the war on terror.



NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over
a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights
in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends.
It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase
in
the war on terror.

NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.


Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not. But
not important infrastructure that has anything to do with national
security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our airports, our water
treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses, our highways, our
hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the AEC, a nuclear power
plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the Bush Administration is
planning to sell off.


So you believe that *Bush* is selling the port operations?

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute
over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that
island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing
rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends.
It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next
phase in
the war on terror.

NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.


Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not.
But not important infrastructure that has anything to do with national
security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our airports, our water
treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses, our highways, our
hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the AEC, a nuclear power
plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the Bush Administration is
planning to sell off.

UAE firms have operated in the port of Houston since the 90's, without
any controversy or fear. As I said, this is a PR mistake, not a
Security Issue.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

Harry Krause a Racist
 

Harry Krause wrote:

I am especially opposed to any Arab nations.

Yep, that says it all.

--
Skipper

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...


So you believe that *Bush* is selling the port operations?


Irrelevant. Strike the comment from the record.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need
to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute
over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The
Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that
island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing
rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his
friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next
phase in
the war on terror.
NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain
away this latest screw-up of you know who.
This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to
allow Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have
invested in countries around the world.

Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not.
But not important infrastructure that has anything to do with
national security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our
airports, our water treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses,
our highways, our hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the
AEC, a nuclear power plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the
Bush Administration is planning to sell off.

UAE firms have operated in the port of Houston since the 90's, without
any controversy or fear. As I said, this is a PR mistake, not a
Security Issue.


If I were POTUS, I'd not allow any foreign companies or governments to
"operate" or be involved in anything in connection with our national
security, and that includes ports, of course.

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

If a Muslims or Arab owns a business in the Empire State Building or
Rockefeller Center, should we not allow him to own the business because
he could place a bomb in the building and blow it up. Sounds like you
have an argument that would insure we do not allow any Muslims or Arabs
to own any business in the US.

Wither you know it or not, you are acting like a bigot.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If
there is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist
to take advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take
advantage, and we should not have holes so big that the owner or
employees can take advantage of the holes.


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If there
is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist to take
advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take advantage,
and we should not have holes so big that the owner or employees can take
advantage of the holes.

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt what
he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.
Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")
Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If there
is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist to take
advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take advantage,
and we should not have holes so big that the owner or employees can take
advantage of the holes.

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt what
he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.


Erwin knows more than I do. We should never turn over national security
to Longshoreman and a company whose priority is to move fright as
quickly as possible. The threat exists no matter who owns the fright line.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt
what he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.
Erwin knows more than I do. We should never turn over national security
to Longshoreman and a company whose priority is to move fright as quickly
as possible. The threat exists no matter who owns the fright line.

--
Reggie

Longshoreman aren't the issue. They wield enough power to shut down any port
in this country. Ervin said the operator will be in charge of hiring OTHER
employees who are not longshoreman, and whose job will involve security that
is NOT PROVIDED BY CUSTOMS & COAST GUARD. That's the weakness. If you think
that a night security guard can't be paid to look the other way for 15
minutes, you are crazy.

Among other things, members of congress want to know what kinds of
background checks will be done on employees. Anyone who thinks it's unfair
for them to ask this question is a complete idiot.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security,


OF course what happens in a port is connected to our national security.

Forget it, Harry. Anyone with an ounce of imagination can see the connection
between the port operator and the potential for security issues. But,
Smithers has chosen not to see it. There's nothing you can do about this.

Fortunately, he's not a security consultant of any kind. His idea of
securing an office building would be to make sure there were two extra rolls
of toilet paper in every bathroom.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Damn, more common sense!



On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:03:10 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and the
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There is
absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our nation's
security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true nature
of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of their
banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious causes, the
fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our ports and not
a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various ports'
management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States may
very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their customary
secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed acceptable.
There are means of publicly vetting these important issues without
compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for a matter
of such great public concern, complete secrecy is counterproductive
regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and public review. In this
instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater than the risk of sensitive
exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of current
hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and media spheres
(both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is buying
a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the various
ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to be sure)
and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases offered by the
states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in charge
of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the type
of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected by
the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely a
non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment to
dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by the
American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to become a
longshoreman has had to either go through the International Longshoreman's
Association on the East Coast or the International Longshoremen &
Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the union is no easy
task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any attempt by the UAE
(or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a non-union member on
the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down to
the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's Port
Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the lifted
beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out loud,
"You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to observe
the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride in what
they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to happen to
their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly. These are the
men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by the UAE's DP
World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The idea
that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly container
into a port is an idea founded without understanding the disconnect between
the port operator and the inbound inspections system employed by the USCG
and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have if
we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice president,
Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong.
I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or
feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities and
pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing to the
wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly racially
profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should disqualify them
from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously. With little doubt and
much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East, a
region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the future
safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede one
of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be certain
and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not necessarily
based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a port operator.
With a longer and more detailed public look at both the role of a port
operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become clear that this is
not at all the security risk that it first seemed to be. But, to assume
otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without such further review is
wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest on
The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make an
important security decision with long term implications. We cannot possibly
make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while hyperventilating
into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/


--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away this
latest screw-up of you know who.

No, I don't buy that. Most likely, if GB had stepped in during the
acquisition phase and announced that no Arab entity was going to be allowed
to run the subject port operations, the media and you-know-whos would be all
over him for further alienating our few remaining Arab allies. He can't
win.

I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

RCE

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

No, I don't buy that. Most likely, if GB had stepped in during the
acquisition phase and announced that no Arab entity was going to be
allowed to run the subject port operations, the media and you-know-whos
would be all over him for further alienating our few remaining Arab
allies. He can't win.

I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

RCE


Of course, he could've quietly held the deal hostage until OBL was handed
over. This would've achieved two good things at once. First, it would've
cranked his approval ratings so high, he could've announced OBL's capture
while simultaneously butt ****ing a toddler on TV, and it wouldn't have
mattered. Second, he could've made the UAE look really good when he
explained that "they assisted".

Sadly, two is twice as many things as the idiot can probably handle at once.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:28:47 -0500, RCE wrote:


I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

That article raised a question to me. It seemed to state that the Coast
Guard inspects the ships and containers before they get to port. I've
seen loaded container ships. Those containers are stacked quite high, and
quite tightly. I'm wondering how it's possible to inspect containers on a
loaded ship. Anyone know?

If interested, a whole bunch of container ship pictures can be accessed
he

http://members.tripod.com/shumsw/

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:35:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.


No problem. I'm glad to see the shining of the light.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:48:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.
Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.



There is still a residue of people in this country who "believe" in
Bush; Herring is one of them.

Harry, can you find the one and only place where I gave my opinion of this
action?

Then, can you find *any* other place in this thread where I've said
*anything* about supporting Bush?

I think not.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:28:47 -0500, RCE wrote:



I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.


That article raised a question to me. It seemed to state that the Coast
Guard inspects the ships and containers before they get to port. I've
seen loaded container ships. Those containers are stacked quite high, and
quite tightly. I'm wondering how it's possible to inspect containers on a
loaded ship. Anyone know?

If interested, a whole bunch of container ship pictures can be accessed
he

http://members.tripod.com/shumsw/


My home port is one of the 'CSI" ports and the US pushed us into buying
one of those mobile giant container scanning machines a few years back.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...arg_inspect.ht

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Not likely.

Rumsfeld was on Charlie Rose a week or so ago and I was
surprised to hear him state that we would not maintain any
permanent bases in Iraq.

I couldn't tell if reality was sinking in or he just thought
he could get away with a lie.

-rick-

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html




However, let's face it - if we can hire, train and allow green card
foreigners to "secure" airports for the TSA, what's the difference between
that and letting an Dubai corporation run our ports.

I've love to know what the reaction would have been if Halliburton was
given the contract.

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:50:42 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:01:24 GMT in rec.boats, Shortwave Sportfishing
penned the following thoughts:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:48:20 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Quit trying to spin this. The whole concept is just wrong. Not only
just PLAIN wrong.... it is wrong for America.

I've been watching this thread with some interest because I regard it
as strictly business, but here's a question for you Gene - which US
company could do the job?

Halliburton? :)

A well taken point.... and I suspect those intent on selecting either
option either don't have their attention focused on what is best for
the US and/or have a private agenda.

As for ANY company doing the job, one needs to consider that no
corporation holds as its priority it customers (in this case, the
American citizens and government), but logically owes allegiance
solely to its stockholders. Thus, privatization is not the panacea
that some would wish you to believe.

To me this port deal is a lot like mail ordering a car from North
Korea and expecting a good product and good customer service. It is
hard enough to get a good product and ensuing support from Ford and GM
and I can walk to their place of business.

Gene, what is it that you fear the Dubai folks would allow through our
ports?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:37:04 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html


Thanks for adding a little realism to this discussion.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT--A practical look at the UAE port deal
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:37:04 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html


Thanks for adding a little realism to this discussion.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

I thought you just chastised others for their political posts John.

Are the ones you partake in ok but the other ones not?

Giddyup Sheriff.