Understanding the Dubai port controversy

I have followed this case a little bit because it sparked my interest in prejudices. I understand the port deal to fall through because it is not owned and operated by a US "entity". Am I wrong, but wasn't British control a non US "entity"? I could understand if the company has a history of terror related activity, but to rely on the Lebanon missile issue is just crazy.

Now, I don't believe in Bush's response either, but then again he has to play world politics and I do not. So it is easy enough for me to criticize. I just believe that if the company proved to be sufficient, and from a nonembargod country, it should have allowed to pass. This is the basis of our system, or am I wrong again?

I am also not trying to stir up harsh opinions either, I am just looking for facts and not hypothetical situations, on why this went down the way it did. I also understand that a lot of the citizens were against it, but wouldn't this be the time to prove our compasion toward ethnic diversity and show that the civil liberty movement is/was for all ethnic or culture equality.

I was very depressed that I did not come across one senator or congressman/woman standing up for equality and not associating terror and weak port authority on a company that runs our ports.

My last question, why wasn't this an issue when the British ran them.

I would have glady gone and thrown all the products in the ocean.

As I understand it, the Dubai-based company backed out. But yes, there was a big hooha about it that seemed a bit silly to me. Should the deal have been investigated a bit more? Possibly, but I just don't understand why they made such a big deal about the whole thing. It's not like another country was going to be in charge of port safety or anything.

"Dubai deal or no Dubai deal, it's clear that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the administration's failure on port security," said Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0310/p25s02-usfp.html

I also understand that we have regulations set forth to govern such activities. How is the administration failing on port security? I thought port security was done by several agencies with final authority by homeland security, or is this just an opportunity to appeal to the mass and create a false illusion on the back of prejudice and fears.

The way I understood it last night on CNN was, first off it was tacked on to the extra money for Iraq and Afganistan and also for added relief funds for hurricane Katrina. Those should have been accepted however, in finding out that it was a foreign company which had already purchased this contract. They then discovered that homeland security so far has only been brought to the level of high importance at the airports only, leaving our ports unattended with right now little or no security. And if President Bush had this contract in place as he did whereby homeland security wasn`t even covered in the ports, and it was going to go to a foreign company, then this should have been dealt with a little more scrunity. Dubei paid for the euorpean ports and the oriental ports as well as American ports. They backed out of the deal because of a substantial credit that was presented to them. As the deal was already completed as far as buying all of the above ports, now with the exception of the American ports some money had to be refunded, who refunded it I don`t know.

Amazing how a little misinformation can go a long way. First of all, Bush said himself that when he signed off on the deal that he didn't know what all it contained. That alone should give shivers to everyone relying on him for our security. He later suggested that he trusted the process and stood behind it even though he didn't know what was done to "pass" DPW in order to let the deal go through. Hell, someone looking for FBI clearance would have been given a better once over than DPW was. It has nothing to do with them being Arab or Muslim.
The real problem comes from past experience with DPW. We, the US, have requested many times in the past that they refuse to process shipped goods to countries under scrutiny and the cargo was either known or suspected of carrying controlled goods. They basically blew off the US and went ahead and let those shipments go through. That is the concern that I have. We inspect less than 10% of all containers coming into the US and that alone is worrisome. The Democrats and the 9-11 commission have been complaining about this the whole time, but no one will listen because it might put a crimp in corporate America. So we have to take off our shoes everytime we pass through an airport so that it looks like they are doing something when all the while the cargo shipped into America doesn't even have to pass through a metal detector or bomb sniffer. Folks, it is time you get educated in all the shit that is going on.
Thanks to President George W. Bush, the sheepskin of conservatism has been peeled back to reveal the big bad corporate wolf that it truly is.

@eurovol

That makes a lot of sense, but I will need to research a lot more. If you have any sources, that would be great. The problem that I have is that it is coming across that because its a middle eastern country, well, atleast that is what I am grasping from the news.

Thanks.

I will post some links when I get a chance. The media is focusing on the Middle East and Arab aspect because the media is full of thrill seekers and sensationalists looking for attention. They need to get back to reporting the facts and the facts are not on a 24 hour news cycle.

The Panama canal is a hugely important factor in US trade and that's owned by the Chinese. If you get in a spat with them then the US is even more fucked.

´
It is?

It's not owned by the Chinese no - it's owned by the Panamanians themselves.

The canal maybe but the ports, locks, etc are owned by Hutchison Whampoa Company of China. So effectively the canal and shipping operations therein are owned by the Chinese.

Thanks Jimmy Carter.

Welcome back,
Your dreams were your ticket out.
Welcome back,
To that same old place that you laughed about.
Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.

Who'd have thought they'd lead ya (Who'd have thought they'd lead ya)
Here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)
Yeah we tease him a lot cause we've got him on the spot, welcome back,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. Oh wrong Mr Kotter...

@Danny Fishcharge:
Let me clarify you a couple of things. The Panama Canal is owned and operated by Panama since the 31st of December of 1999 thanks to a treaty signed by US President Jimmy Carter and panamanian chief of state General Omar Torrijos in november 1977. This treaty gave back a country what was its own since ever and was simply taken by american governments without any considerations of what this could imply to the people living there. For 73 years there was a great piece of Panama that was not anymore panamanian soil becuase succesive american presidents didn't want it to be. It was american soil, governor included. After the treaties were signed there was a scheduled process for transfering all the assets of the Panama Canal to panamanian administration that was completed in 1999 when the last american soldier left panama and the american bases where officially closed.

The Panama Canal operations are run entirely by the Authority of the Panama Canal . The Panama Canal is a monolitic structure that operates in an integral way. The locks are not something ran by someone and then the water supply by some other company an so on. The entire operation is done by panamanian workers under panamanian admininstration. There is no influence of China, Hong Kong or any other country in the way the Panama Canal operates.

The only activity that is performed by Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd is the administration of one port on the Pacific (Balboa Port) and one port on the Atlantic (Cristobal Port) under the figure of an administrative consession in which the ports are owned by the Panamanian Port Authority and operated by a company that wins this right after competing with a plural number of companies. Ports are not part of the Panama Canal; Panama being a country with thousands of kilometers of coasts in both the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans has several ports, not only two; the operation of the ports, although financed by private investors, is done exclusively under the panamanian laws and by no means it is to be used as a cohersion instrument by the operator against Panama or any other country. Panama is a free, democratic country that has the right, as well as any other country, to do bussiness with whichever country they want. It is not to be decided by the US or any other player in the global geopolitical scenario what or how Panama does with its possesions as long as the international laws are respected. None of which are violated in any form by this concession.

The idea that the Panama Canal is controlled by the red Chineese government is one impulsed by senators like Jesse Helms and other ultra conservative members of the Republican party that cannot accept the fact that this small country in the middle of America could regain complete sovereignty over its territory against the most powerful country in the world. Most recently this argument had been used by those opposed to the arab port deal that was impulsed by US President Bush in recent days. All of these comments about Panama Canal being controlled by China lack of any fundament and are very far away from reality.

@BadBob
Yes, thank you Jimmy Carter for being a President with enough courage to correct what was wrongly done back in 1904 and giving back to the people of Panama what was theirs.

and...who's bright idea was it to let the Chicoms run the port in Long Beach, California?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/...4741.shtml?s=et

and which President was it that took out that guy Noreiga, who declared war on the US?

OOh ooh I want to guess.
Sauron the Great?

Bush delegates most issues, focuses only on Iraq, '06 campaign

This is the problem with a deadbeat braindead person being allowed to run the country simply because he could talk more like the braindead that he is (not) serving.

BadBob is back???

Yes, BB is back...

Too bad the UAE isn't giving up it's operations at the Miami port. What will Hillary have to say about this?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...nort.guest.html