Thursday, February 23, 2006
Dubai: Don't Sell
In case you thought that Laura Ingraham's on-line poll showing 90 percent opposition to the port sale was skewed by the well-known predilections of her listenership, I thought I should pass along that the MSNBC poll, not encumbered with rightward leanings, is at 88 percent against and holding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Mr. Homnick, could you post a link to the MSNBC poll? I clicked around their site and couldn't find it. I'm interested in the phrasing of the question. I believe this issue has been framed incorrectly, and honestly disagree with you regarding the merits of excluding an Arab-owned corporation. This action will only generate a false sense of security. Smuggling/theft is as old as the shipping business. Security concerns can be addressed in the port operations contract awarded to the UAE company, but ultimately must be addressed by the security operation (separate function). I know you've considered all this, but in a rush to have an opinion (did MSNBC ask "Should Arabs run our ports?") we risk mis-characterizing the question. We need to focus our attention and funding on the security opertions, we will always have shady characters trying to evade procedures in our ports.
Sorry T, but this is more akin to having a taco stand on the US side of the border that is run by Mexicans.
Unfortunately, the high poll numbers (IMO) show that there is an irrational fear of anything "arab" in this country.
While I am aghast that Bush is threatening his first veto (he ought to have at least a few threats under his belt), I do agree with him in principal.
From a political standpoint, however, this is what we have (unfortunately) learned to expect from Bush.
If I recall, didn't Bush threaten to veto his own defense spending bill if the McCain anti-torture amendment was included in it?
I kind of agree with CLA. I think the fear is mostly irrational "Arab-baiting." The only publicly vocal person I've heard with a good reason to be leery of the deal in terms of national security was Randi Rhodes on Air America. She pointed out that Dubai's notoriously lax gold exchange is a principal money laundering venue for terrorists (specifically al Qaeda) and that the exchange, like Dubai Ports World, is owned directly by the Dubai royal family. The family is at least tangentially complicit (by turning a blind eye at the minimum) in enabling terrorists.
Like I've said elsewhere, I think the real scandal is the impropriety - real or merely appearance-wise - of how the investment was vetted by the government.
And no infrastructure should ever be outsourced to a firm owned majorly by a foreign country. Ever. That's just a huge recipe for disaster.
Simple question ... why not? Give a reason. You write with a style and flare that can lead people down the path of agreement, but you are lacking any reason.
If I recall, didn't Bush threaten to veto his own defense spending bill if the McCain anti-torture amendment was included in it?
I'm sure your right ... my memory is not that good.
How 'bout: Bush should be making his Nth veto threat, which could lead to his Mth veto, where N>M>1? :)
I had hoped to link to the poll, but they don't have it on a particular page. It's on the bottom of their news stories. When you vote, you get to see the current standings.
The reason is quite simple: because you are then giving another nation a measure of control over your countries infrastructure.
I disagree.
You are not giving them a measure of control. If they don't do their job they are fired. The USA remains in control.
They don't have our best interests at heart.
I agree to an extent. They have their best interests at heart, which includes keeping their job. Thus indirectly they most certainly have our best interest at heart.
You have not given a single argument that is specific to a company that is run by a foreign government that cannot be applied to ANY company.
I could change my mind given a good argument (or maybe I'm just dense), I just have not seen one yet.
For example, would you object to the USA (or your pharmacist) buying pharmaceuticals from a company owned by a foreign country?
Tlaloc, sorry to have not addressed your assertion earlier, I was busy. You've had lots of back-and-forth with JFE and CLA in the meantime, but I'll return to your original attempt at analogy. You compared running port operations to "border control...but their response was to hand it over to a firm owned by the Mexican government...It seems pretty clear this is a case of asking the fox to guard the henhouse." Your example is clearly NOT analogous. The port operations firm (whether American, British or UAE) doesn't do "border control" nor "guard" anything. My question to Mr. Homnick (regarding the MSNBC poll) was sparked by such improper framing of the issue. You've been sucked in by this. As I concluded, shady characters have always been trying to evade procedures in our ports. I worked for 3 1/2 years at an operation in Jacksonville, FL and we had a U.S. Marine convicted later of stealing several automobiles from the port. I mention this because you could hardly get more "nationalized" and "patriotic" than a U.S. Marine, yet he ended up doing time in Ft. Leavenworth.
The key is to concentrate on our security funding and procedures. There are many articles online about this today, including at Townhall.com. I'm not saying that this issue is a slam-dunk "yes" or "no" but for Mr. Homnick to cite polls ginned up in the MSM's rush to slime Bush is silly.
In the meantime, the Administration and UAE firm were smart to "buy time" and allow for a 6 month delay in the takeover. At least now we'll have some modicum of due process and reasoned debate, including a review of how our security procedures interact with the port operations companies, regardless of who owns them. If, on balance, they believe that a U.S.-owned firm is preferable, I'll respect the decision. But I have no respect for a "Should Arabs run our ports?"-type question because this is, at best, misleading and at worst, jingoistic.
In closing, please remember that I'm no fan of Islam and served in Iraq in 2004. I'm all for national security, I just don't want us to fool ourselves into a false sense of security.
Tlaloc, you're absolutely right, if "bad guys" mean to do harm it's always best to have inside knowledge and infiltrate with employees loyal to you.
Referring back to my previous comment, I was incorrect about a "6 month delay" to review the corporate takeover by the UAE company. Right now 45 days is the number making the headlines. It could always be extended, of course. The businessmen are smart and will extend until they think the answer will be "yes" to allowing the takeover.
As stated, I'm OK with an answer of "no" as long as we are rational about the whole thing.
Post a Comment