Questions about the Dubai Ports deal

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Mar 6, 2006.

  1. Okay, so there's a lot of controversy about the Dubai Ports deal, even among conservatives.

    Question: If Dubai Ports takes over management of the ports, who will be in charge of security? The Dubai company, the Coast Guard, who?

    Question: Will the workers themselves change, i.e. the longshoremen who handle the containers.

    Question: If the answers to the above are that the Coast Guard or another federal agency is in charge of security, and the workers will continue to be the same American longshoremen, what is the danger with this deal?

    Tommy Franks is in favor of this deal. He doesn't seem to me to be the type of guy who would endorse a deal that would compromise security at our ports.

    Having said that, I'm not picking a side here. When I first heard about this, I thought it was nuts. Now that I'm hearing more details, I'm not so sure my initial reaction was warranted.

    Looking for intelligent debate and no flaming, if such a thing is still possible here in Chit Chat.
  2. here is the problem i have. there is really only one easy way to get a nuclear bomb from outside the usa into the center of a us city. that would be to use a cargo container. only 10% of cargo containers are ever inspected. is it possible that somehow an insider could arrange to let one get through? do we want to take that chance? you decide.
  3. I think its a great idea.
  4. From waht I understand it is the coas guard and customs that would do the security. Most people in the know believe that security definitely would NOT be compromised. I for one agree.

    However, the masses only see "Arab country to control US ports". Unless Dubai could SIGNIFICANTLY increase the efficiency of the ports, it's probably better just placating the general public.
  5. The US is in charge of security, the firm from what I understand and the company only runs the operations and is headquartered in Dubai and is owned by the state, it's not a private company.

    One one hand it looks very bad to put arabs in charge of anything over here but it's our responsiblity for the security which is lacking and probably couldn't get worse if even OBL was in charge.

    On the other hand UAE apparently has changed it's tune towards terror and may be a bad move to piss them off considering the help they have been providing us and also the democrats are suspected for trying to deep six the deal because the unions want total control.

    It's complicated.
  6. First of all ports are strategic facilities, just like nuclear power plants etc.

    Dubai Ports, its employees and management will have detailed information about every ship and container coming and leaving the ports, it will have access to every corner of those ports, it will become intimately familiar with port rules, procedures, operations, they'll have ample opportunities to learn which/when/why/how containers are inspected, how many shifts, how many inspectors during each shift and eventually what's the best way to beat the system. Their employees will be in daily contact with the coast guard with a distinct possibility to bribe or blackmail them or simply have a beer with them and "overhear" classified information.

    The management in Dubai just like management of any other company will have plenty of indirect ways to influence their employees and make them do things they are not supposed to do. I mean we all want to get a bonus, right?
  7. ==============
    This is complex & think a fine leader like General/mr Tommy Franks is right to support Commander in Chief Bush on this.

    And somewhat agree with president Bush on being ''consistant ''on this;
    however just emailed him again today. ''Consistantly'' do NOT want UAR running'/owning our ports/commodity Companys or Chinese running our oil companies.

    Not going to, pretend play the race card/trade card;
    because certainly in favor of selling them both K.F.C[Kentucky fried chicken, its finger lickin good]

    Ap Headline in local newspaper today says''Frist says DP ports del could still go through''Written by Hope Yen.
    Hope it doesnt go through.

  8. You missed one. Piecemeil it over the border, assemble it in-country, and drive it to your target destination.

    The Bush administrations 'open border' policy poses a much bigger threat to this countries security because illegal aliens (aka terrorists) and WMD's can be ferried across nearly undetected.

    At least Ports enjoy a modicum of security provided by Coast Guard and Customs.

    Nevertheless, both should be locked down if this country is serious about defending against attacks.
  9. This deal may have actually pushed for more containers to be checked. The public would insist on it. Of course, that would probably only last a couple months before they got lax again so it would probably be a better move to leave things as is.
  10. I have no issue with the Dubai organization managing the deal. Security would have continued to be maintained by the Coast Guard which can easily monitor incoming craft egress and access.

    And the longshoremen who are there now, probably would be there then. I am a bit dismayed in the lost opportunity to get real assistance, including fiscal, for the port upgrades. This DWI organization manages ports worldwide. The government approval could have easily been tied to a plan for 100% container screening requirements to be accomplished within say three to four years. Maybe a stairstep type regulation.

    It could have easily become the model for all port upgrade plans nationwide. For those worried about getting bombs into the country, there are tons of ways for the right amount of planning and monies. All we can do is the best we can do until we find the next hole. Then we have to do better to cover that hole!

    This is a big country. With serval avenues for good or bad. We can't be paranoid and paralyzed!! :)
    #10     Mar 13, 2006