UAE running our ports? - Page 2

hybrid · 02-22-2006, 04:28 PM

I have to agree with you hand and bugeyed..........its a desperate situation, unfortunately.

I dont see it on either time line though, more in the middle.

Sure we spend 10 times more on military than the next power (GB) and 100 times more than Russia but we have lots of people pissed off and lots of people we owe something.

The smoke and mirror show is going to fail and we are in for some deadly times.

bugeyed · 02-22-2006, 04:38 PM

Assuming financial meltdown does happen though, if you own some land you can always "drop out" and regress to permaculture farming to feed yourself, and use solar and wind power for your energy. Of course you would have to seriously cut back on your expenses. Self sufficiency is the key, and it really isn't such a bad thing, a liberating thing even. People have this option, but the only problem with it, what's to keep government to keep from raising your property taxes to obscenely high levels and then liquidating your land when you can't pay. Now you know why I am adamantly against property tax, which is really a tax on your means to provide for yourself and your family.

hybrid · 02-22-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugeyed

Assuming financial meltdown does happen though, if you own some land you can always "drop out" and regress to permaculture farming to feed yourself, and use solar and wind power for your energy. Of course you would have to seriously cut back on your expenses. Self sufficiency is the key, and it really isn't such a bad thing, a liberating thing even. People have this option, but the only problem with it, what's to keep government to keep from raising your property taxes to obscenely high levels and then liquidating your land when you can't pay. Now you know why I am adamantly against property tax, which is really a tax on your means to provide for yourself and your family.

Youre preaching to the choir buddy!

I am adamant that when I earn something, its going to take my dead body to take it back.

Geowitz · 02-22-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugeyed

Oh, I don't give that much time. Another 3-4 years at most, perhaps 5. And that's a conservative estimate.

Triple_Z · 02-22-2006, 06:50 PM

Interesting issue...although I'm not quite sure where the source was found that said Bush or Congress didn't know about it...this morning's WSJ basically went into the members of Congress currently against it, and the statement from GW indicating that he would not block the sale given current information. The national news sources and business periodicals have been talking about this for a bit.

Today's article did raise an interesting point though. Even if the US were to own the ports, we still don't open all of the containers to check them. The ports where the containers are loaded are the start of your issue, with regards to national security at least. In addition, Customs officials, DEA, etc., would all still have access to these containers and ports for their routine inspections. You always have the option of throwing more inspectors at the issue if you feel foul play might be evident.

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the concept of the Economic Enterprise Zones (I believe that's the term used). For those of you worried about a foreign company owning a port, that is nowhere near as dangerous as a foreign country (take China in LA for example) owning a piece of land at a port which does NOT fall under US jurisdiction. Frankly, why smuggle in weapons/bio agents in a public port when you can pay off a general in the Red Army (e.g. or Hutcheson Wampoa...whichever name you wish to use) to allow you to do the same? I don't honestly feel this is as big an issue with national security as it's being played out. Honestly, suitcase nukes, bio agents, etc., aren't generally going to be shipped over in container ships. They're small and easy to conceal. With the scrutiny at the ports as it stands, it's much easier to smuggle the stuff in through Canada or Mexico, and you're less likely to get caught.

Personally, you're seeing this as an issue because the elections are coming. Each side has to polarize itself to gain voter support. That's partially why you see Democrats and Republicans actually forming sides with each other (some Dems/Reps are for it, and some are against it) against the president. GW has nothing to lose; Congressmen do.

bush · 02-22-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geowitz

And I don't think it's Bush's deal to approve in the first place. It's not his job in the first place. The government is made up of a lot of people and placing blame or credit on just the president is narrow thinking. Is it your boss who makes everything happen or is he really supposed to just lead you.

You seem to have missed one vital detail:

Bush said he'd veto any attempt to STOP the deal from going through. He may not be responsible for it, but if it ends up going through despite all the public outcry, he may very well be the one to blame.

Geowitz · 02-23-2006, 12:30 AM

Of couse you'll blame him. That's a given for anything, but anyways what I meant was that it's not his job in the first place. Wait, that's not just what I meant, it's actually what I SAID before. This aint the first place anymore. Once congress sticks its nose into it THEN it becomes Bush's issue. It's not even congress' issue in the first place.

Geowitz · 02-23-2006, 12:33 AM

And Triple Z hit the nail on the head. It's not the same here. They aren't BUYING anything. They are leasing and running the ports under our jurisdiction using our citizens. Nothing will be any different than when the Brits owned it.

WISPER · 02-23-2006, 06:53 AM

I'm kinda on the wall with this issue. I know some guys from the immerats and they're cool as hell, really nice people. I've not caught a single one of them trying to blow something up even.........But.
Even though the sale doesn't give them any control over port security, it does give them access to port security plans and that might let some fanatic plan a successful penatration of said securitys. In all honesty if they wanted to bring "something" into the country its probably already here.

m21att1 · 02-23-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WISPER

I'm kinda on the wall with this issue. I know some guys from the immerats and they're cool as hell, really nice people. I've not caught a single one of them trying to blow something up even.........But.
Even though the sale doesn't give them any control over port security, it does give them access to port security plans and that might let some fanatic plan a successful penatration of said securitys. In all honesty if they wanted to bring "something" into the country its probably already here.

That's what I was trying to say earlier about them gaining access to our infrastructure. I have nothing against the country or the people. I'm just saying there is a lot of money floating around in the middle east and even more money floating around to those who provide information that could lead to an attack on US soil.

m21att1 · 02-23-2006, 08:23 AM

By the way, Thanks everyone who posted, I gained some more knowledge on the issue and it's also good to see it from other people's perspectives.

AnKleBiTer · 02-23-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

I think its a non-issue. It may actually be the third time I've agreed with Bush.

I agree with Jim. But then I've agreed with the commander and chief on a few things, just a few. I will say however, that President Bush will probably not be remembered as my favorite president.

DCMETRO1 · 02-23-2006, 10:01 AM

what I dont understand is why this has to take place in the first place, we dont have a company here who can do the job?

jim schmidt · 02-23-2006, 10:31 AM

So can anyone clearly define what the problem is with having them own the business that unloads cargo at the ports?

bugeyed · 02-23-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geowitz

And Triple Z hit the nail on the head. It's not the same here. They aren't BUYING anything. They are leasing and running the ports under our jurisdiction using our citizens. Nothing will be any different than when the Brits owned it.

This is wrong.

See here
In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.