HELP! Did Democrats just pull DEFEAT from the JAWS OF VICTORY

[Sensitivity]

Could it be that we were CONNED, DUPED, SNOOKERED into joining in a NeoCon misinformation campaign designed to save the Repuke congress, promote their pro-Israel agenda, and protect their “war on terror” bogeyman?

I am very familiar with global supply chain security and the terminals business. I am a life-long progressive. It has been painful to see that almost ever line of attack against the Deal, and to rile-up American public opinion, seems to have been bogus “misinformation” or swift-boat-liars type smear attacks. For example:

An Arab country is buying our ports!

Bogus! Ports are owned and managed by local governments who lease terminal rights to various terminal operators.

Dubai Ports World (a global conglomerate with heavy U.S. representation at all levels of management) was in the process of acquiring a British Maritime conglomerate, Peninsula & Oriental.

P & O has terminal operations leases for a few terminals at 6 major U.S. ports and owns a maritime services subsidiary that does work on several other ports as well. U.S. terminal rights account for only 5% of P & O assets around the world. They are not that significant except symbolically and to the extent that they affect the rest of the deal.


American companies should operate all terminals at American ports

Why? This line of propaganda was actually nonsensical. American companies operate terminals all around the world (Guantanamo for example). But, they are NOT in the large-scale container management business, because it is has a notoriously low return on investment.

In fact, 80% of terminal operations in the U.S. are managed by foreign-owned companies. Chinese controlled conglomerates manage the majority of U.S. port terminal activity, in part because they own the Maritime operations that move large containers from the Far East and it is much more cost-effective and secure when a single company manages large-scale cargo operations from beginning to end.

If the DP World deal had gone through, DP World would still be a minor player in the U.S.

What should we do now: force DP World to sell rights to U.S. firms at cut-rate prices? Threaten to bomb countries that don’t turnover their more advanced terminal operations technology and expertise to us

Who really would have benefited from the Ports Deal: Carlyle Group, Bush?

That was simplistic crap. The real beneficiaries were:

Democrats – the deal would have exposed RW “war on terror” for the fraud it is and smashed the alliance between Republican corporatist, globalist financiers and its jingoistic, xenophobic base. That is why the NeoCons and Israeli lobby were determined to kill it.

P & O shareholders – mainly Europeans – who have really manipulated DP World to paying much more than they could get from an American or European firm.

P & O American workers -- who would have higher salaries and more job security working for DP World than they had before. Keep in mind, terminal operations are “locale based” jobs that are never moved to another country no matter who the investors are.

U.S. ports security business -- Congress would have to throw more money into security given the renewed attention. The Repubs who have been blocking Port Security standards and expanded budgets, would be motivated by public pressure. DP World's #1 rated security infrastructure would have put pressure on other operators to invest in security. (Now they have killed the Deal, no more worries about extra port security headaches!)

Dubai – they improve their economies of scale as they expand their #1 rated global terminal operations business.


Ports Deal would take away American jobs!

Biggest load of crap. Port Terminal operations is one of those business where investment actually creates local U.S. jobs, in contrast to investments in Telecom, for example, which transfers jobs to India.

Port deal would have created U.S. jobs, improved security.
But who cares about the truth.
It’s election time again!

Jingoists, xenophobes, bigots, UNITE!

[pocket]

1. it did do a good job of whipping up a racist, xenophobic fury

and justifying racial profiling

[Richardo]

46. Horseshit.

[thereismore]

2. wait a minute, so you would like UAE to get the deal? nt

[Sensitivity]

28. Don't care about UAE! But hate to see RW political manipulation succeed.

[Toots]

56. The only line you had about Democrats was positive

It allowed Democrats to show how Republicans really treated "Homeland Security", What has this to do with any Democrats other than they asked for a legitimate investigation, especially after Representative King went on National TV and said Security issues had not even been addressed. This was about Republican bigotry and getting caught in their LIE that America is at War. Funny sort of War with no defined enemy. They began their "War" by showcasing Arab Muslims as the enemy. Democrats never did that. Democrats just call them on it. It has nothing to do with good business sense it has to do with hypocrisy and Democrats don't have to do much of anything on this deal to allow Republicans put theirs on display for the entire world.

[mdmc]

3. actually, I stated that I opposed this deal because it made

Bush look bad. UAE bolting from this deal is the single greatest blow to free trade since 9-11. Worse still, we will end up taking the port away from the UAE (which had very thin connections to 9-11-01) and give the ports to Haliburton, which probably had more to do with 9-11-01 then all of UAE.

remember my "racism and the ports deal' thread?

[pauldp]

7. Very thin connections to 9-11?

got a link for that?

[mdmc]

11. allow me to rephrase that

thinner connections then the BFEE or Haliburton. UAE had two terraist and laundered the 9-11 money. UAE princes hung out with Bin Laden.:kick: to clarify.

[lonestarnot]

4. What a load.

[pauldp]

5. BS. The Al Qaeda connections alone should have killed it.

Not to mention the fact that the UAE Royals were buds with Bin Laden AFTER the east African embassy bombings.

Last time I checked Al Qaeda was an equal opportunity terrorist organization.

The racism card is horseshit.

[mdmc]

14. Al Qaeda is not equal opp terra

I think that you can buy their protection alla UAE.

[KoKo]

6. Lot's of spin there in what you say. There's so much info that refutes it

that it's not worth going into. Just wait until we see the "shell company" that is going to take this over. :rofl:

[Just Me]

8. The contract allowed them to escape from compliance with U.S. law.

Moreover, although national security may be of no concern to you, whatsoever, it is a concern for many Americans.

The jingoists, xenophobes and biggots were whipped up by those who likely profiteer from the Dubai ports deal: the BushCO/neoconsters and their global imperialist buddies.

My hope is that the American people start to get a whiff of precisely how these multi-national companies have been operating (including, most of all, U.S. MN Corp). They get free passes on laws that protect people from economic barbarians and funnel human resources and treasure into a few greedy pockets.

[Armstead]

9. America should control its own infrastructure and economy

I'm not xenophobic, nor am I afraid of "Arabs." Nor am I against internationbal trade. But we have to start bringing this damn "global economy" back down to earth.

This notion that all national interests should be sold off to shdowy transnational corporations is wrongheaded, and anything the dilutes it is a good thing IMO.

If American businesses are too wussie to try to make a business out of it, then set up municipal or federal entites to do it. Sorta like we did to set up and run most public infrastructure before privatization and Corporate Globalization ran amuck.

[Sensitivity]

34. Agreed! But why with this little deal? Was really a tool for the RW

I know about the business.
I have no doubt that there was RW political strategy around how
public opinion was spun here.

[Armstead]

40. A straw that broke the camel's back, IMO

Mybe this was a little deal, but it became a steam valve for a lot of otehr things that had ben building up.

This was like the OJ trial or hurricane Katrina, in that it touched on a mix of deep-seated issues that made it much larger.

I think a lot of people have been growing increasingly anxious about globalization and the hollowing out of our economy. And also the high-level cronyism and corruption.

[Sensitivity]

44. I agree, but the demagoging with phony stuff made me feel dirty

[slor]

10. Oh yes, poor little UAE...

we were so mean to them, even for a country with such a dismal human rights record. Poor little UAE.

[libodem]

12. I had a friend come over and try to explain this to me

mind you, he is a Democrat so. I figured he'd be against this 'heinous' act, I was confused. Granted I thought UAE WAS Saudi Arabia, to start, with. The last thing he said was this company uses American dollars and it sends the wrong message about our currency. If they can't spend American dollars to buy American things then our money is no good to them. They might just drop the dollar. We are in such a huge deficit we need to sell somethings to get back out of debt. Not that this particular deal would have touched it.

[Cleetus]

13. pro-Israel?

Pro Israel? What's wrong with supporting Israel? Sorry for being obtuse, I must have missed something somewhere.

[mattclearing]

21. Nothing wrong with being pro-Israel

so long as it doesn't mean anti-Palestinian.

If Pro-Israel means you favor the eradication of the Palestinians from the territory (as the more extreme elements of the Israeli government do), then it's not a very good thing.

If Pro-Israel means you just hope Israel can live in peace with its neighbors, then that's all well and good.

[Sensitivity]

35. I support Israel. But not Frank Gafney et. al Lobby for Iraq war and

other anti-arabist policies.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

59. How about this for starters

WE don't just give them moral support and stand behind them, we give them arms and support them literally, with money.

I don't think the USA owes any other country their very existence.

[SPKrazy]

68. Israel Is Our Ally!

And Palestinians are determined to use terrorism to attack Israel.

Now I know that Israel isn't innocent in the whole conflict either.

To me, it being pro-Israel isn't the problem, it's the Neocons affiliations with the hard right Likud party of Israel that are the problem (Perle,etc)

I understand wanting to have security for Israel, but the Likud'ers seem to want total domination over their enemies, rather than peaceful coexistence.

But the Palestinians have not given Israel much reason to want to live in peace with them and visa versa as well.

[IsItJustMe]

15. Maybe we can outsource our government to the UAE?

Yeah, lets sell the whole damn country. More globilist corporate misdirection.
:wtf:

[DrGonzoLives]

20. RACIST OMG

:sarcasm:

[Lolivia]

16. Guantanamo is not a shipping port

"American companies should operate all terminals at American ports

Why? This line of propaganda was actually nonsensical. American companies operate terminals all around the world (Guantanamo for example)."

I see a nonsensical line of propaganda here - but it isn't about Dubai.

The US is not "operating a terminal" at Guantanamo. Goods are NOT being shipped through Gitmo. Gitmo is a military installation under the control of the US military. You know, the whole terrorist detention and torture complex. Are you really comparing the Dubai deal to Gitmo? Are you saying Dubai should have full military control over our ports?

You lost me after that piece of spin.

[Sensitivity]

26. That is my point. Various U.S. port operations but not major container

management. But note that U.S. still insists on "enforcing" rights to this Cuban port
which far exceeds any type of terminal leases that any foreign company has in U.S. ports.

[Lolivia]

30. You are comparing apples to monkeys

It is not a "Cuban port," it is not run by an "American Company," and the US military is not running "port operations" there. Guantanamo has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Your original post implied that since "American companies" are "operating terminals" like the "Cuban port" of Guantanamo, it is OK to have a foreign company run our ports. None of that is accurate.

Are you instead saying that because the US has military installations elsewhere in the world it is OK to have foreign governments run our ports? That doesn't make any sense.

[Sensitivity]

32. The U.S. actually operates the Cuban port, and many others elsewhere.

The are U.S. terminal operators such as CERES. They are just smaller and not into
the huge investments in modern container management equipment.

[Lolivia]

36. Anything done at Guantanamo is done in US territory

and it's not a good thing from the Cuban perspective. The US doesn't run Cuban ports or anything else there - it runs US operations in US territory. Again, not relevant to the Dubai thing unless you are suggesting that UAE claims the ports as part of its own territory, with sole control over the entire territory (as is the case with the US in Guantanamo).

If other countries allow the US to run their ports - their bad choices aren't any reason for the US to make bad choices.

[Sensitivity]

37. Are you claiming Guantanamo Bay as U.S. Territory -- Cuba would not

agree.

Guantanmo has served as a refueling and maintenance port for U.S ships, and has provides support to U.S. anti-drug operations in the Caribbean. It is used against the will of the
Cuban government with the U.S. goverment paying $4000 per year for the lease (checks which
are always returned).

This is the kind of "ports" deal that the U.S. historically imposed in other countries.
Compare that with the Dubai ports deal and how it was propagandized beyond recognition.

[Lolivia]

47. Now you are arguing in circles

In your original post, you called the argument that the US should operate its own ports "nonsensical propaganda," and you pointed to the fact that "American companies operate terminals all around the world (Guantanamo for example)." The implication being that the US operates ports in other countries, so there is no problem with other countries operating here.

I pointed out that US companies do NOT operate ports in Cuba. The US military runs a naval base in Cuba, which it claims as its own territory. I also pointed out this is not a good thing from the Cuban perspective. I asked how the fact that the US operates a military base in Cuba under extremely hostile circumstances makes for an argument that Dubai should run our ports. I pointed out one has nothing to do with the other.

Now you come back and admit that it is not "American companies operat(ing) terminals" in Cuba, but rather the US is using the base against the will of Cuba to maintain its own ships. Nothing comes into Guantanamo that then goes into Cuba (like what happens at the US ports in question). So you are no longer arguing that because the US "operates ports" in Cuba (you have just admitted that is not what is happening there) Dubai should get to operate ports in the US. You now admit that one situation (Cuba) bears no resemblance to the other (Dubai).

Instead, you seem to completely change arguments and imply that because the Dubai deal would stop short of Dubai actually taking over the territory around the ports in some sort of hostile coup, the US shouldn't have a problem with it. I think that's a pretty weak argument. Again, the situation in Guantanamo is so far removed from what is going on in the US, it isn't even relevant. And once again, just because Dubai is stopping short of what the US did in Cuba doesn't mean it's not a bad situation.

[Sensitivity]

49. I was using Guatanamo as an ironic comment. Just like Brit used

to run Hong Kong and Kuwait etc. Most of U.S. maritime operations were largely
acquired by foreign interests in the 1990's, but prior were major players worldwide.
Even now, smaller U.S. companies such as Ceres and SSA Marine provide port operations in over
a 100 port around the world.

My main point, however, was that the modern technology and expertize for handling largescale
container business is not in U.S. owned companies, but in Chinese, Singapore, Danish and Dubai firms.

[Lolivia]

61. You get farther afield with every post

So you used an "ironic" comment about the US controlling a naval base in Guantanamo - which has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about - to make the point that China, Singapore, Denmark, and Dubai have better technology for running ports? Technology that they have for some reason invested heavily in to run the notoriously low-profit container operations? "Ironic" comments that you repeated for several posts before suddenly switching tacks? "Ironic" comments about governments having sovereign control over territories (not ports or shipping operations) to show that it is propaganda to suggest the US should run its own ports?

At best, your posts are full of non sequiturs, weird comparisons, poorly made points, and irrelevant comments. At worst, they are full of propaganda and misinformation.

[mattclearing]

17. Thanks for sharing this all with us now that it's over.

I don't know enough about it to determine whether you're right or wrong.

But your timing is laughable, and warrants me flaming you crispy by itself.

[tjwash]

18. "Jingoists, xenophobes, bigots, UNITE!"

Thank you for the lumping all of us together who think that this port deal stinks into your tidy little categories.

So, we just toss aside the facts that the UAE is a non-democratic dictatorial regime, that openly recognizes the Taliban as the only legitimate government in Afghanistan, that has one of the worst civil rights records in the middle east, that has laundered money for Al-Qaeda, produced two of the pilots that flew into the world trade center buildings, and openly hampered the search for Osama Bin Laden when he was hiding out there shortly after 9-11?

Yeah, but then they said oops, sorry for all that, we'll help you with your war on terror. Trust us.

Sure I trust them. :eyes:

Oh, I'm sorry, I must be a bigot, or a xenophobe for bringing that up.

[Sensitivity]

31. Don't support UAE. Alternative is CHINA for this low-profit business

Don't support China either. BUT, terminals are typically operated at a loss, unless combined with global of maritime operations.

Don't think CSX or Haliburton really care about our security, but about PROFITS.

[DrGonzoLives]

19. Uh huh

John Snow contracted with this company when he was Big Chief of CSX.

An aide to Cheney did work with them as well.

But, no, it's easier to be an idiot and just say RACISM RACISM RACISM.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

22. I'm tired of these posts

Congrats on being so progressive. You'd progress us all to our graves if you gave every smiling face bearing gifts a chance to prove they aren't really bad guys.

[politicaholic]

23. So is that it? You're labeling everyone who's against the deal?

You seem to regergitate talking counterpoints very well. Have you ever thought that perhaps there are mixed messages here? Perhaps its for the best that Middle Eastern companies and interests stay hands off while the conflicts are still hot.

The Administration can't demonize one Middle Eastern country and bring up another in a place where 'the grey area' is so prominant.

[Sensitivity]

27. Not at all. There are some good criticism for the process in which

it was review (as Wes Clark said). But most arguements in the public forum were not
logic based but fear-based and designed to serve repub objectives.

[warrens]

24. Paranoia, big destroyah...The Kinks

Dems stood up to a clear security threat and dragged the lapdog Repukes along with them. Smirky is tarred now, along with all the GOP apologists who tried to say that keeping our security in American hands was somehow racist.

[snooper2]

25. Actually, you have many things wrong with your post

Besides the annoying bold font, but this tidbit....
--
Ports Deal would take away American jobs!

Biggest load of crap. Port Terminal operations is one of those business where investment actually creates local U.S. jobs, in contrast to investments in Telecom, for example, which transfers jobs to India.
---

Is crap....Telecom companies have relitively few outsourced jobs to India due to the nature of the business. But you wouldn't know that.

#H-1Bs Company name

689 TATA CONSULTANCY SERV SILVER SPRING ROCKVILLE MD MID 20910 20852
672 MASTECH OAKDALE PA 15071
229 SYNTEL TROY Ml 48083
224 SAI SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS INC KINGWOOD TX 77339
144 INTEL CORP SANTA CLARA CA 950528119
132 COMPUTERPEOPLE PITTSBURGH PA 15205
131 COMSYS TECHNICAL SERV DALLAS TX 75244
124 QUALITY INF SYSTEMS SOUTHFIELD MI 48034
116 INTELLIGROUP ISELIN NJ 8830
110 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES WARREN NJ 7059
110 ACE TECHNOLOGIES MATAWAN NJ 7747
109 KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP MONTVALE NJ 7645
108 ORACLE REDWOOD SHORES CA 94065
98 PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP NEW YORK NY 10020
95 MOTOROLA INC SCHAUMBURG AUSTIN IL TX 60196 78704
89 COMPUTER CONSULTING SERVICES ATLANTA GA 30338
82 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED DALLAS TX 75251
81 FRONTIER SYSTEMS EDISON NJ 8837
81 CYBERTECH INTL TREVOSE PA 19053
81 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS WESTPORT CT D6880
80 BATON ROUGE INTL BATON ROUGE LA 70816
79 APAR INFOTECH PITTSBURGH PA 15241
79 ALLIED INFORMATICS INC NORCROSS GA 30092
77 ERNST YOUNG LLP NEW YORK NY 10019
75 HPS AMERICA INC PLANO TX 75075
72 SYSTEMS AMERICA SAN JOSE CA 95110
72 COMPUTECH EDISON NJ 8817
71 DATA CORE SYSTEMS PHILADELPHIA PA 19104
70 DELOITTE TOUCHE LLP WILTON CT 68970820
68 DATA CONVERSION CAMBRIDGE MA 2142
67 RCG INF TECHNOLOGY EDISON NJ 8837
67 DATAMATICS CONSULTANTS INC DULUTH GA 30096
65 POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB ISELIN NJ 8830
65 KEANE CHARLESTOWN MA 2129
65 BIRLA HORIZONS INTL ISELIN NJ 8830
64 IMI SYSTEMS MELVILLE NY 11747
63 WIPRO LTD CUPERTINO CA 95014
63 TEKEDGE CORP SUNNYVALE CA 94087
63 INDOTRONIX INTL POUGHKEEPSIE NY 12601
61 HCL AMERICA INC SUNNYVALE CA 94086
60 COMPUTER ENTERPRISES PITTSBURGH PA 15220
59 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESOURC CLEARWATER FL, 33761
58 K41LLENNIUM COMPUTER SYSTEM NEW YORK NY 10010
56 COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS IN FARMINGTON HILLS Mi 483343339
54 QUALCOMM INC SAN DIEGO CA 921212779
54 HARVARD UNIV CAMBRIDGE MA 2138
54 GULF COMPUTERS WESTFORD MA 1886
54 COOK AND ASSOCIATES INC MEMPHIS WN TN 38138
53 BEECHWOOD COMPUTING LTD SANTA CLARA CA 95054
52 Hl TECH SOFTWARE SERVICES INC CHARLOTTE NC 28227
52 GRI INC DBA GLOBAL RESOURCES SAN RAMON CA 94583
52 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT MAYNARD MA 1754
52 COMPUTER HORIZONS MTLAKES NJ 70461495
49 WIPRO CUPERTINO CA 95014
47 KAY SOFTWARE INC MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043
46 UB INF CONSULTANCY SERV PITTSBURGH PA 15241
46 NORTHERN TELECOM INC NASHVILLE TN 372281397
45 WEBSCI TECHNOLOGIES SOUTH BRUNSWICK NJ 8852
45 HI TECH CONSULTANTS INC SOUTHFIELD 4.8E+08
45 DSQ SOFTWARE EDISON NJ 8837
44 YALE UNIV NEW HAVEN CT 6510
44 PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS CAMBRIDGE MA 2142
44 ALPHABYTE CORP PLEASANTON CA 94588
43 APPLIED MATERIALS INC SANTA CLARA CA 95050
41 SIGMA SYSTEMS SHREWSBURY MA 1545
41 SAHANA ENTERPRISES INC PLANO TX 75093
41 PENTAFOUR SOFTWARE & EXPORTS L CERRITOS CA 90703
41 DATASOFT TECHNOLOGIES INC LAWRENCEVILLE GA 30043
41 BUTLER INTERNATIONAL INC REDMOND WA 98052
40 INTL BUSINESS SOFTWARE ISELIN NJ 8830
40 COMPUTER INTL ISLANDIA NY 117887000
39 VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES INC ORANGE CA 92865
38 INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE SERVICE WOODRIDGE IL 60517
37 SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE INTL WORCESTER MA 1603
37 MORGAN STANLEY NEW YORK NY 10020
37 COMPUTIEC INTL RESOURCES INC GLENDALE CA 91203
36 UNIV OF MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455
36 SOFTBYTE INTL EDISON NJ 8820
36 PROFESSIONAL ACCESS NEW YORK NY 10005
36 MICROSTRATEGY VIENNA VA 22182
35 HEWLETT PACKARD CO SUNNYVALE CA 94086
35 GOLDMAN SACHS NEW YORK NY 10004
35 AMERICAN MGT SYSTEMS FAIRFAX VA 22033
34 UNIV OF PA PHILADELPHIA PA 19104
34 LARSEN TOUBRO FORT LEE NJ 7024
34 INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED FREMONT CA 94538
33 THE SABRE GROUP INCORPORATED FORT WORTH TX 76155
33 INTL SOFTWARE GR PRINCETON JUNCTION NJ 8550
32 CGN & ASSOCIATES INC PEORIA IL 61602
32 ATLANTIC DUNCANS INTL CHANTILLY VA 20151
32 ACS INTL RESOURCES WILMINGTON DE 19808

[Sensitivity]

39. H1b is for Work in the U.S. not in India. Indian support & call centers

provide extensive services to U.S. telecom and IT industry.

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.commweb.com/news/163100804

My first lecture is this area was at the International Law Institute in 1985.

[Virginian]

69. The companies you listed profit of of H-1b

and lobby congress to raise the quotas each year so that they can make more money importing more Indians to fill US jobs.

Bush braggs about so many more hundreds of jobs each year, but he fails to mention how many thousands of H1b visas are issued to fill those American jobs.

Eliminate those visas. The Y2K crisis is over. It is easier for Indians to retrain through their free colleges than for Americans to spend megabucks to retrain for a different job.

[Odin2005]

29. Congressional pukes used this port fiasco to gain brownie points...

...with voters at the expense of a lame duck administration with low poll numbers. They want to look as independent from Chimpy as possible to protect themselves from Bush's tainted coat-tails.

[jsamuel]

33. bull

I understand what you are saying. The first thing I posted online about this story is that we need to make sure that we do NOT make this a race or religion issue. The reasons to oppose this have nothing to do with the United “Arab” Emirates, rather with the UAE, the country itself. As 9/11 was happening, I was very worried about the anit-islamic sentiment in the country and I think that we need to do everything we can to stop xenophobia from taking hold in the country. Unfortunately, the way Bush and the Republicans in congress have been running their political campaigns and wars, the Republican base has grown (or been validated) more racist against people of Islamic origins. Isolationism was a large sentiment before WWII and it ended up giving way due to Pearl Harbor, but since the War in Iraq has been shown to be a complete blunder, Isolationism has been making resurgence in the US, especially among Democrats, Libertarians, and moderate Republicans. This is good and bad because Isolationism can keep us from invading countries that we have no business in, but can lead to xenophobia. So, an important BALANCE must be struck.



There are two major points to be stressed to make me conclude that this is a bad deal:

While Britain controlled these ports before, I really don’t care for that much either. The ports of a sovereign nation should be controlled by that nation. Just as a nation’s oil reserves, utilities, or coast guard should be operated by that country. It is common sense.
Even if you disagree with point 1, the country that you would allow to control the ports (or the company based in that country) would have to be trustworthy. Why? Because (even though they don’t control the security) they are going to know EVERYTHING about port security in each of those cities. With they have the ability to completely circumvent the system? Probably not, but that country will know every weak spot there is in our security and will have people working with these weak spots daily.


This deal is effectively putting targets on the backs of these cities. The deal creates weak spots in the most populated cities on the east coast. It’s just a plain bad idea.



All that without considering how trustworthy the UAE is… Here is some info on the UAE:



UAE royal family met with Bin Laden, saved him from CIA hit
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.htm

MR. FIELDING: Yeah. Well, I would appreciate that on behalf of the Commission if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good, and that by the time the camp was dismantled days and days had passed.



So I would appreciate --



MR. TENET: There's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Ladin was inside or outside the camp --



MR. FIELDING: Of course.



MR. TENET: -- it was a complicating issue in this whole thing -- and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.



The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.



But in any event, I would like -- I will try and reconstruct the data as best I can, in terms of what I had in my possession at the time.





The UAE won’t recognize Israel. (While Bush is making a deal with the UAE, he won’t touch Hamas because they won’t recognize Israel.)





The UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as legitimate rulers of Afganistan.





Some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and were fincanced through UAE banks and the UAE government would not cooperate with the investigation after 9/11.





In general the UAE has 10X more problems with terrorists than Iraq had before we invaded them.



Bush is doing more of that “trust me” stuff. Chertoff (Dept of Homeland Security Chief) said that they have good reason but it is classified. (rolling eyes)



That’s my view right now. Plus, the Sec. of the Treasury (who approved of the deal) was appointed by Bush after working with this company. The Carlyle Group (group of investors including: Bush, Blair, and other major RWer’s) is also heavily invested in this company. The people in the Bush Administration will make lots of money with this deal.



The issue is just one of hundreds that I don’t like, but the reason why this one is making such a ruckus is because Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians hate it (80-90%). Rarely do we see numbers so profoundly against Bush for something he is willing to veto over. Plus Bush’s devout followers are so enraged over him allowing this to happen that they are openly bashing him on their “only good news for Bush” forum. It could be where Bush’s approval numbers finally get well below 40% permanently, not because of Democrats, but because of fed up Republicans.



Now we also see that:



1) P&O (Peninsular Oriental Navigation Co) is for sale. Its a British company that has been in business for nearly 170yrs.



2) P&O has a subsidiary company that handles its "Port/Terminal" Management for several US ports.



3) There were only two bidders on the table for the deal - A company from Dabui, UAE called Ports World and a company from Singapore called PSA. One has ties to "bad people" in the middle east and the other to "bad people" in China and the far east.



That is a good argument for the deal, but not really a solution to the problem, rather is brings the real problem up. The real problem is that our ports are being operated by companies (privatization) rather than by the government. Nader warned us against privatization as many Democrats do as well. I am very much against privatization of anything that should be run by the US government. That includes Social Security.

[Rockholm]

38. Wans't this SAME thread posted two weeks ago?

[Johonny]

41. I think your wrong

Basically don't see how it creates US jobs. The ports are there already. It just a change of the logo on the guys shirts. I also can't see any real change in security. Port security isn't that hot and it's unlikely to change under new management.

I really didn't see any xenophobia , bigotry in those that oppose this deal. I think most people quickly understood that being able to operate our ports is a privilege. The question was did this country deserve not only that privilege but the privilege of bypassing the law of reviewing the deal. We are talking about a country that is in a unique position to be very helpful in the war on terror. The country has instead not been very helpful at all. Some would argue they have even gone as far as to help the enemy more than help the US. Either way the question has to be asked is this a country worthy of not only a privileged deal but a secret privileged deal. It can't see how they are. To me is was the secrecy of the process that sank this deal. That the people in Dubai nor the people in the White House could be open with the American people about this deal tells me all I need to know about the people involved. There is nothing wrong with judging people by actions they have actually done.

[Sensitivity]

43. Sorry, I heard xenophobia on some of the most liberal talk shows in SF

[Johonny]

45. So because

there are some xenophobics in the world means to share a belief with them makes you a xenophobic too? What I heard on a lot of SF liberal talk shows were a lot of people that don't trust the Bush administration and thus do not trust those that conduct secret deals with the Bush Administration.

[Sensitivity]

48. This global ports deal has been in the trade circles for months

There was no secret of the competition between DP World and PSA for the acquisition.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Sure! I'll Be Glad To Help!!! No. No. They Didn't.

They did the right thing.

There. Easy enough. Let me know if you need help with anything else! :hi:

[mdmc]

50. no "r"s for your call of racism

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

51. Amen, brother (or sister), but even here they can't see through the lies.

It is about racism, xenophobia, hate and this is part and parcel to the fascist enterprise in control.

Sensitivity, where have you been? Can I put you on my favorite poster list?

[mdmc]

52. well, maybe one "R"

lol

[The Stranger]

53. But so many that do not see.

[mdmc]

54. check this out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=483358

[The Stranger]

55. Given the conditions stated (posted in the link), it is impossible to

oppose the deal without being racist. So the choice becomes being a racist and opposing Bush, or not being a racist and not opposing Bush.

Believe me, it is no secret how I feel about him, but I refuse to offend the most sacred values of being a Progressive for the expedient of some kind of "victory" over him.

But I like the post(linked). So what am I missing here?

[Sensitivity]

57. You are missing that Carter, Clark, Cohen are unprincipled flacks

for Dubai Ports, while Frank Gafney, Duncan Hunter and Tom Delay are noble patriots
concerned about "the security of the american people" to be fully trusted.

[mdmc]

63. Actually, I think that they are all concerned about the security

of the USA. It is only Bush that seems willing to put the USA at risk.

I understand that the M$M will spin it as you have. I hear you!

[mdmc]

60. nothin

except that the white house has pushed fear and terra, and that this push has resulted in racism towards the UAE deal. Even the M$M was unable to undue the racism caused by the white house war machine. Free trade (what the NWO, M$M, BFEE are all about) took a major blow when the UAE bailed on this deal. If you are missing anything it would be that this racist setback represents the biggest blow to free trade since 9-11.

[mdmc]

62. I oppose the deal because it makes Bush look bad

Bush supports the deal, I oppose it. I oppose it because Bush supports it. I conceed that a majority of the opposistion stems from racism. This racism stems from the propaganda supplied by the M$M and the BFEE.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

58. That is exactly what happened

I said it was a Rove trick when it first broke here.

I said Bush will cave and Congress will look like it is strong and independant and give them somethi9ng to run on in Novenmber.

That has come to pass. Last night CNN was covered with stories of Bush "caving" and congress showed they are strong and have a backbone by standing up to Bush.

The worst one I saw was CNN kept putting up a crawl that said WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Yep, see! Not only is the repuke congress strong and independant of Bush, but they listen to US!:sarcasm:

We're going to get our asses handed to us again this November at this rate. Rove and company still play our side like a frickin' fiddle.

[mattclearing]

64. Nonsense.

If you think people are that gullible that they believe whatever bullshit CNN throws on their scroll, then you are in a for a rude awakening.

Besides, it's local media that will determine who wins this year, not the national media.

And the incumbents will be accountable for all of their votes to support President Bush.

[Sensitivity]

65. I agree here. Some negative spill on repuke. But NeoCon strategy

was definitely to save their agenda at the expense of Bush -- Kill Ceasar, save the Republic(an) congress.

[Rich Hunt]

66. yeah they did

I'm afraid it's too late.

Idealism and faith died yesterday.

Once faith is gone, you can never get it back.

So it's too late.

Bring on the gendarmes and hang her already.

[mdmc]

67. always faith

good to see your post!