Outsourcing national security

Parent Cafe
101

<p>“It would literally be quite impossible to try to untangle these relationships, and of course it would be economically disastrous to even consider it.”</p>

<p>It’s a nice long explanation, except for the fact that the company is OWNED, and CONTROLLED by the government of UAE. Not a private company. Not a public company. Not a capitalist company. The government. It’s a not like a private ship with a company flag.</p>

<p>No complaints from me if you and Barrons feel comfortable supporting socialist enterprise. But why not start at home?</p>

102

<p>Mini - another way to look at this - I’m not positive - but I’m reasonably certain - that UAE law offers zero tolerance for women who get pregnant, but who also are not married. </p>

<p>In such a country, being a never-married single mother, I’m pretty sure their (current) law means that I would have been thrown into prison and stuck there for years, and the resultant child either sold into slavery, traded off for something, given away - who knows. Furthermore - I don’t know for certain - but strongly suspect that nothing at all happens to the person who did the ejaculating - the man in the equation gets to walk away with no penalties at all. </p>

<p>Now, that’s disgusting, horrific, unthinkable, unimaginable, and, obviously, and I don’t like it. I could, of course, fly over there, knock on the head sheik’s door, demand to see him, and attempt a conversation, and just point blank tell him all about how horrible his country’s law is, why it’s wrong, etc… But that approach would almost certainly would land me in the exact same prison, probably buried so deeply that the state department would never, ever be able to dig me out. </p>

<p>The best possible way I can think of to introduce a differing point of view - or at least an environment receptive to a differing point of view - is by introducing representatives of that country to the incredible opportunities available in a society like ours, where, what a surprise, a female can have a child, even without a marriage partner, and still be so successful that the child can grow up to achieve wonderful things (such as EA deferral and subsequent rejection from Harvard College lol).</p>

<p>International trade (as well as more fun stuff like cultural exchange, athletic competition etc.) has long been one of the primarily catalysts for societal influence and change. </p>

<p>As an aside, the majority of China companies are at least partially government owned as well, which - by the sheer numbers I would have to think includes several of those who have owned U.S. based port operations for a while.</p>

103

<p>This is not a company that is “partially owned” by the government. It is a socialist firm, owned and operated by the government for the benefit of the people (ho-hum). </p>

<p>“The best possible way I can think of to introduce a differing point of view - or at least an environment receptive to a differing point of view - is by introducing representatives of that country to the incredible opportunities available in a society like ours.”</p>

<p>Now isn’t that culturally chauvinistic? Isn’t it more likely that they want to introduce you to theirs? Teach our corporations (as if they need teaching) that capitalism and democracy are actually antithetical to each other - as they in fact are - and that the best corporate environment is a predictable, oligarchical one, and that they should move their bases of operations where they don’t have to put up with the ‘predations of democracy’?</p>

104

<p>The “fact” that capitalism and democracy may not share the same goals at the same time does not invalidate them as an effective means to organize the society. Also concentrating power into the hands of a few is no guarantee of stability or favorable treatment of business. There have been poorly run socialist states and well run ones. Same for other forms of government. The structure itself does not guarantee any result.</p>

105

<p>Well, at any rate, I’m glad you endorse “outsourcing” to socialist government-owned and operated companies, and I’ll assume you endorse “well-run” socialist enterprises in your own country as well (maybe we can start with the successors to Enron.)</p>

106

<p>I have no problem with other countries using the model that works for them. I would not generally endorse a socialist enterprise in the US because our model works best for US given all our other social and legal traditions, etc. Some would call our public unversities a socialist or public enterprise since there is a private sector alternative and I like our public universities very much. Same for our parks and many other government services that could also be privately run. Our economy is mixed in many ways and that’s fine by me. the debate between public and private enterprise and interests is healthy–we win some and we lose some on both sides.</p>

<p>I enjoyed the Washington debate on the Wal-mart health bill. It was really funny when it turned out the largest employer with workers using the low income state insurance system was—The State of Washington.</p>

107

<p>So, should we have a democracy in Iraq, considering their traditions?</p>

<p>What model works best for them? The Jeffersonian Democracy that our President promised would take hold?</p>

<p>And, if the Presidents people didn’t know about this, yet it was “fully vetted”, how do we know anything they say is true?</p>

<p>Another issue, I have heard that the Coast Guards budget is not where it should be that the coast guard in undermanned</p>

<p>Miami Herald:</p>

<p>“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has installed radiation detectors to scan for nuclear materials, put inspectors at foreign ports and uses high-tech software to flag suspicious cargo. Still, Customs inspects only a fraction – as little as 2 percent – of the 8.6 million cargo containers entering the country for weapons of mass destruction.”</p>

108

<p>It is worth a shot. </p>

<p>No public budget agency has all the money they could use or would like to have. A report yesterday on NPR said they are adding equipment to scan containers at a rapid pace. Most are checked for radiation already and they are working on other types of scanning. So far there have been no incidents with containers other than normal smuggling so how much do you want to spend on a low level threat?</p>

109

<p>I thought this adminstration was SOOOO concerned about the HOMELAND being secure, what we don’t secure it here, jsut over there?</p>

<p>And there are no American companies that can do the work…for all you who brag about buying American and talked about freedom fries and supporting American workers and companies, guess it is all smoke and mirrors</p>

110

<p>I never have used the term freedom fries or buy American. My cars are all made in Europe or Japan. I generally support free international trade and business. These port terminals were already owned by a British and Dutch companies.</p>

<p>Security is good and could always be better. How much do you want to spend?</p>

111

<p>CGM, you should love this deal. All the good guy, Democrat, labor union people will still be employed as they always have been; but those evil, money-grubbing, high-level, <strong><em>Republican</em></strong> white collar guys may be SOL. This is your dream come true.</p>

112

<p>And billions of American tax doillars are going to UAE</p>

<p>Woohoo</p>

<p>Please do not tell me what I would like</p>

<p>And I didn’t like that the British and Dutch owned them either</p>

<p>Are you saying that no AMerican companies can do this? And what about the behind the door deals being made, the connection between the decision makers selling their company to gee, this same UAE business, and the secrecy, and don’t give me national secuirty bs for it having to be secret, if they have nothing to do with national security as some claim, then it doesn’t need to be secret</p>

<p>boy oh boy, how is it that people never question this administration about anything and have such blind trust, its almost cultlike</p>

113

<p>CGM there is absolutely no such thing as total security, not in any venue, ever. The best anyone can hope for is the best possible security balanced against unrestricted access to healthy trade and exchanges of culture. </p>

<p>Two excellent books that address this in solid detail: “Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World”, and “Beyond Fear”, both by Bruce Schneier. They’re fun to read, too, even if you’re not into tech or security stuff. He has a third book on Cryptography but I haven’t read it yet. </p>

<p>As another poster has already said, countries who are invested in our economy and have some stake in our continued economic success are far more likely to remain on our side against insidious threats. Better be wary instead of countries who are not interested in investing in the U.S.</p>

114

<p>And some people have such blind hatred they can’t accept reality. And all the liberals complain about the US standing in the world, well this uproar is hurting the US standing in the friendly segments of the Arab world more than all the photos of the prisoners we are holding.</p>

115

<p>Luckily, George Dalton is GC for Dubai Ports World, and its third ranked senior officer. Fordham graduate - undergrad and law school, and American citizen. Hopefully he will help translate some of the hysteria to his bosses, which should go a long way to mitigate some of the embarrassment.</p>

116

<p>And George Sr.s the Carlyle Group got lots of money from this compand Neil got some investment money from them as well</p>

<p>And the web of connections and favors just keeps getting longer</p>

117

<p>Friendly? yeah, thats the reason, sure, we will buy that</p>

<p>its all about money and that is slowly coming out and did I hear correctly that Rove said there will now be a delay…omgosh…where is that veto now</p>

<p>so, even your President is back stepping…</p>

<p>And how come no body seemed to know anything about this deal until the evil press told them? So who was investigating the company…Rumsfield didn’t know, Bush didn’t know, Cheney SAYS he didn’t know</p>

<p>You would think with this global war on terror they would concern themselves with 20 us ports, but hey, whatever, we gotta win that war in Iraq that is going so well…</p>

118

<p>Keep looking for those conspiracies–it’s all out there somewhere. I think it’s the Freemasons.</p>

<p>BTW they had the head of the Port of Seattle on NPR this afternoon. The company has a great reputation worldwide and she saw no reason not to let them operate in the US. </p>

<p>This is pure racist hysteria.</p>

119

<p>On another of your favorite topics</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

120

<p>

</p>

<p>Not really, or at least not entirely.</p>

<p>It is also about:</p>

<p>a) A lack of confidence in the administration’s Department of Homeland Security apparatus</p>

<p>b) A reaction against a secretive administration</p>

<p>c) A reaction against an adminstration that gives the appearance of favoring business cronies over national interest</p>

<p>d) A consistutional turf-battle between Congress and the Executive branch regarding oversight of national security activities.</p>

<p>You have to view this issue in the context of misleading the American people about WMD in Iraq, appearance of influence peddling, stonewalling on the NSA spying issue, and the failure of the Homeland Security department in Katrina. This issue is being played out in the context of diminished faith in the administration’s competence. In the mix is also politics: Democrats being handed opportunities and Republicans up for reelection trying to distance themselves from a failing administration.</p>