The journey from there to here

As the debate rages on about the UAE ports deal, I have found a very interesting fact as I have listened to where various pundits fall on the issue. Oddly enough, opinions on the ports deal are NOT falling along party lines. This is probably the first area of politics I have found where Michael Medved, George Bush, and Jimmy Carter can all be found on the same side.

I will be the first to admit, when I first heard about the ports deal, I had a bad feeling about it. VERY bad. And, in fact, had JU been up and running I am sure I would have blogged pretty heavily to that effect. But the truth is, my gut instinct, spidey sense that it usually is, failed me that day. It was probably not actually a gut instinct but rather the three pepper enchilada I ate the night before.

I am sure that the debate will rage on about the UAE ports deal for some time to come. Even after the issue is resolved. If the sale goes through, doomsayers will make a lot of money by reminding us our ports are controlled by Ay-Rabs (don't believe me? Then you must not be old enough to remember the doomsday scenarios that centered around the deal that returned the Panama Canal to the control of its namesake country). We'll probably see an increase in anthrax scares from paranoid longshoremen who are equally suspicious, and we'll thrive on the paranoia. Whole careers will be born as talk show hosts and bloggers rant on (whoops--I gave away my game plan!) about the destruction of our society.

If the port deal does not go through, however, I'm afraid the results may be more severe. I believe that if the opponents of the port deal win, we will begin a long road to a destructive isolationist mindset in which American citizens who practice the Muslim faith will find themselves ostracized from a society that fears them for what they do not understand. While I am personally not a fan of the Muslim faith, I know and acknowledge that there are many good, honest, and noble practitioners of that faith that do not deserve the stereotyping that is quickly becoming a legitimate concern.

On paper, it is in my opinion a bad idea to sell an interest with such potential security issues as a port to a foreign nation whose interests are not the same as our own. But it is a far worse idea to pick and choose which ally nations are and are not acceptable buyers for a port we've already sold.

To those who will point out that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Dubai, I must again insist that those two are no more representative of their nation than Lynndie England is of ours.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 01, 2006
i enjoyed reading your article...and agree with you on many points....one note, as someone who has pointed out that 2 of the h/j'ers were from UAE. i don't say it in saying that they are representative of their country (which seems kind of a strawman arguement to me) but i do rationalize that these 2 weren't alone, they were just the ones who came here. but i'm sure that when they were there they had friends and / or family who thought the same way.
on Mar 01, 2006

but i'm sure that when they were there they had friends and / or family who thought the same way.

Good point, and consistent with my position. Because I KNOW Lynndie England has fellow countrymen who think the same way as she did. I've met my fair share of them.

Kooks will be kooks. Every country has 'em.

on Mar 01, 2006

Another good reason that JU was down is that we did not get caught up in the manufactured hysteria about the 'ports'.  For it is not 6 ports, but 9 terminals in 6 ports.  Hardly full control of those ports.

In point of fact, it would be dangerous for any private concern to have control of an entire port, even if they were red white and blue.

on Mar 01, 2006
guy,,,you keep pointing to the guys at the top, and "control" of the port....as i said in my own article on this subject (i've been thinking about this dubai deal) ...i could care less who "controls" the port...it's about access, and access to information. one does not infiltrate at the top...infiltration and smuggling type operations are done from the bottom,,,it's much easier to bribe any number of desperate, way in debt dock workers or drug using dock workers or gambling dock workers than it is a CEO. and why would anyone wanna talk to the execs and "managers?" they can't help you smuggle a nuclear bomb into the us. but the guys on the ground can.

and sure, some of this info could be obtained without this deal,,,but it's much easier the closer you get.

george bush invaded iraq on the premise of gettin saddam before "a mushroom cloud" appeared in our skies....we were told that we now need to be extra careful and act pre-empively because sitting back would only lead to us being bombed by terrorists and then it would be too late....maybe we need to be a lil pre emptive instead of giving away a piece of our country to an interest and a nation that at least has as many people who hate us as like us.
on Mar 01, 2006

guy,,,you keep pointing to the guys at the top, and "control" of the port....as i said in my own article on this subject (i've been thinking about this dubai deal) ...i could care less who "controls" the port...it's about access, and access to information. one does not infiltrate at the top...infiltration and smuggling type operations are done from the bottom,,,it's much easier to bribe any number of desperate, way in debt dock workers or drug using dock workers or gambling dock workers than it is a CEO. and why would anyone wanna talk to the execs and "managers?" they can't help you smuggle a nuclear bomb into the us. but the guys on the ground can.

I keep pointing it out because people keep making the same mistake as half of congress and the MSM did.  If you want to talk about the terminals, talk about the terminals.  Dont call them ports.  That would be like saying that the City Council of Richmond was convicted of bribes, when the fact is that just one member was. 

And the management of the terminals by Dubai is not going to facillitate the terrorist gaining the information more than the poor schmoe you just talked about.  The Doc Foreman looking for easy money.  He can just as well be working for GM as DP.  That would not change his dishonesty or ease of corruption.

on Mar 01, 2006
It isn't a mistake, Dr. They know they are misrepresenting the situation. It is election year, and this is the kind of thing thre gets under the skin of people flipping past a news channel to find nascar.
on Mar 01, 2006
sorry guy,,,i didn't realize this was all about the terminology for ya....ok terminals....but the fact still remains,,,nuclear bombs are smuggled thru the terminals at the ports. and ya only need 1. but they would have 11 options at their disposal.
on Mar 01, 2006

nuclear bombs are smuggled thru the terminals at the ports. and ya only need 1. but they would have 11 options at their disposal.

Agreed, but they have 300 since we still only spot check any shipments (5% was the last I heard).

on Mar 01, 2006
Sean, with all due respect, you've allowed your imagination and understandable concern to overrun logic and reason. The people intimately familiar with the security risks have said there is no difference in the risk based on who owns the contracts in question. I recommend you read through some of the other threads on this topic - there is an excellent reply post by ShadowWar in one of them (sorry I don't recall which one) outlining the reality of the current port security situation.
on Mar 01, 2006
yep,,,5%,,,and again,,,we need to get serious about port security. i see rejecting this deal as a 1st step.
on Mar 01, 2006
sorry guy,,,i didn't realize this was all about the terminology for ya....ok terminals....but the fact still remains,,,nuclear bombs are smuggled thru the terminals at the ports. and ya only need 1. but they would have 11 options at their disposal.



lol, yeah, if I had a nuclear bomb to smuggle in, I'd most definately come in through a port where boats are inspected regularly. I wouldn't be coming over the Canadian border, or bringing it straight to the beach with a private yacht, or landing a private plane at a small, private airport.

No, I'd spend billions of dollars to buy the right to control ports all around the world, take on the headache of actually managing them, and then when my cousin Ahmed called and said he needed to get a bomb in, I'd risk the billions of dollars I invested by letting him commit the biggest crime in history by way of my business.

Does no one understand how nutty this all sounds? If you are worried about single employees, then it won't matter whether it is a British, German, or UAE based company. They all have employees from all over the world and they all have little terror cells floating around.

If you are worried about something organized from WITHIN the company, try to put yourself in their shoes. If you could spend a million or two on a plane or a yacht, why in the hell would you go to the trouble of making this kind of investment? It's sad, James Bond era paranoia.

You should really ponder what they hell you mean when you say "They", Sean. It sounds creepy. Either you don't know who 'they' are or you most certainly don't know how the real 'they' work.
on Mar 01, 2006

Does no one understand how nutty this all sounds? If you are worried about single employees, then it won't matter whether it is a British, German, or UAE based company. They all have employees from all over the world and they all have little terror cells floating around.

Logic has no place in politics, and this is pure politics.

on Mar 01, 2006
baker....the shipments are not inspected regularly,,,5% is the generally accepted number. ,,,but if i was smugglin a nuke...i know i would only have 1 shot in all likelyhood....whereas 1 in 20 is a good number if i'm smuggling heroin thru a mule...i'd wanna improve my odds. and if i had countless billions to do it...buying up some terminals would make sense. do ya'll remember the moral of the "trojan horse?" or how bout hansel and gretel? in this case, money is the candy.

and please folks,,,stop callin em a company,,,they are owned by the UAE govt. ... therefore they aer very much part of that govt. that had diplomatic ties with the taliban before we took their base in afghanastan out.

on Mar 01, 2006
Nothing you just said addressed my point, Sean. There are too many ways to get stuff into this country where there are no inspections at all. It's insane that you would buy up terminals when a private boat or plane would suffice. Hell, they could have bought their own submarine for what they would be spending on this deal.

The fact that shipments aren't inspected regularly even works to disprove your own point, frankly. Why would they need to manage the port when there is little chance of being caught, and managing the port really wouldn't help your odds? Worse, this deal drew attention to them, why exactly would they want that?
on Mar 01, 2006
Sean -

I found the reply I was referring to above. Reply #8 in this thread:

Link
2 Pages1 2