POL - Our ports under UAE control?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Government type: federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates


Overall governmental authority is invested in the Supreme Council, which consists of the seven sheikhs; a majority of five (including both Abu Dhabi and Dubai) must agree to any action.

Yep, and they run the country like a corporation, which the Abu Dhabi sheik (who is normally the one in charge of UAE) acting like a CEO, insisting on Western standards of transparency in business dealings. UAE is a very economics based country.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i cant talk about this anymore tonight...

thank god.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you prove my point....

Hugo has threatened to stop oil to the US. What would happen if we had to declare war on Iran. Hugo COULD stop Citgo's oil delivery to the US....that is exactly my point. thank you...

...

They have as much of a chance of stopping the sale of oil to the U.S. as the U.S. does to not buy oil from the middle east. The market just isn't structured that way. It may not be their specific oil that flows into the U.S., but the U.S. will still get its share.

What you described is an empty threat.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...

I dont understand this sentence and have reread it

...

The distinction, or lack thereof, between company and country is important to you because it helps you rationalize your position.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

They have as much of a chance of stopping the sale of oil to the U.S. as the U.S. does to not buy oil from the middle east. The market just isn't structured that way. It may not be their specific oil that flows into the U.S., but the U.S. will still get its share.

What you described is an empty threat.

thats what I said, that this UAE deal would NOT effect economic ties worldwide.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The distinction, or lack thereof, between company and country is important to you because it helps you rationalize your position.

its important to me becuase it is important to me.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

USA, as in US government, or US 'companies'? If US companies (in this globalized world there really isn't such a thing), then what if DPW registers its headquarters as being in New York City and reincorporates in New York State? That would make it a US company.

as long as it is not owned by another country's gov't.

Originally Posted by i

And what exactly is a strategic asset? Are manufacturing plants a 'strategic asset'? Some would argue so, because if we get in a war (where have I heard that postulation before?), these Chinese companies (or other Asian or Latin American countries) can hurt our economy by refusing to sell us certain manufacturing goods, or by closing down manufacturing plants they own in the US (like Japanese companies). How far does it go?

that was my point, in saying that this would be a better argument.

Originally Posted by i

And why is the company that unloads crates in the US more suspicious than those that load those crates in other countries? Do we say that they have to ship using US companies? After all, isn't it worse that China has total control over what it loads in the crates than the fact that a UAE owned company unloads those crates in US ports?

It is much harder to control what goes on in another country or on another country's soil than our own. That is proven, just look at how we've controlled things overseas in the past 20 years. All we really have, our last bastion of integrity forever is our borders and what goes in and out of them. Once the borders are beaten then things will be, and have gotten much tougher to control. Makes sense doesnt it?

[Flasch186]

internal DPW email says that the company actually might NOT sell of their interests in SOME of the ports here eventhough they have stated that they would. Didnt someone ask why they would want to go against corporate stated policy earlier.

Jeez I dont understand, if their so true to the word why would they lie...why would they want to house their documents offshore? I dont get it, jeez...how could I be so wrong? man!!! I hate that. Trust me, Americans dont need to worry about Homeland Security - W so silly, they misled us.

and it looks like DPW is moving forward with the deal as of today wherein they will serve as the management unless Congress steps in.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

internal DPW email says that the company actually might NOT sell of their interests in SOME of the ports here eventhough they have stated that they would. Didnt someone ask why they would want to go against corporate stated policy earlier.

Jeez I dont understand, if their so true to the word why would they lie...why would they want to house their documents offshore? I dont get it, jeez...how could I be so wrong? man!!! I hate that. Trust me, Americans dont need to worry about Homeland Security - W so silly, they misled us.

and it looks like DPW is moving forward with the deal as of today wherein they will serve as the management unless Congress steps in.

Cite? EDIT: Never mind, I found it... look at the next post below.

And of course they are going to serve as management until they can get it sold! Duh! What else would you have done? No one work the ports?

[ISiddiqui]

I think I found it... and what a tempest in a tea cup!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3720795.html

WASHINGTON — The Dubai-owned company that promised to surrender its U.S. port operations has no immediate plans to sell its U.S. subsidiary's interests at Miami's seaport, a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.
Even if DP World were to sell its Miami operations to quell the congressional furor over an Arab-owned company managing major U.S. ports, "that would probably take a while," wrote Robert Scavone, a vice president for DP World's U.S. subsidiary.

The e-mail, obtained by The Associated Press, added to questions raised since DP World's announcement last week that it will divest U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
DP World has said those operations are worth roughly $700 million.

The takeover touched off a political uproar over the Bush administration's earlier approval of the deal without an intensive 45-day security investigation. The company initially sought to quiet the dispute by submitting voluntarily to such an investigation.
Last week, DP World backed away from the deal further. It pledged to "transfer fully" its U.S. operations to an unspecified American company and said DP World will not suffer economic loss.

The company has steadfastly declined to clarify its statement or the timing of any possible sale, and leading congressional critics have threatened to intervene if DP World's plans fall short of a full divestiture of its U.S. operations.

Scavone told AP in an interview that his e-mail was intended to reassure officials at the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co. _ which manages operations there and is half-owned by a DP World subsidiary _ that uncertainty surrounding the Dubai ports deal would not affect its work in Miami.

"As for the 'pending situation,' I myself am not aware of anything about it that would alter the ownership of POMTOC, so unless one or both of our esteemed partners have separately advised you that they plan to sell their interests, you should assume for your own purposes of managing the company that ownership of POMTOC is not going to change," Scavone wrote.

"And even if they do plan to sell, that would probably take a while," he wrote. Scavone's e-mail responded to an earlier message proposing a formal review of the port company's budget, "once the pending situation is resolved and ownership of POMTOC is established."

Scavone is executive vice president for security at P&O Ports North America Inc. and was among the company's executives who testified about the Dubai ports deal during congressional hearings this month.

Scavone told the AP that under U.S. corporate laws, P&O's ownership in the Miami port company would not change even under DP World's planned divestiture.

"Just because a shareholder owns the top company of an elaborate network of corporations worldwide, it does not mean that what those corporations own changes hands," Scavone said.

Peninsular and Oriental handles significant operations at ports in New Jersey, New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia _ plus lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.

Scavone declined to confirm or deny he sent the e-mail, but he contacted a reporter less than one hour after AP's inquiry to explain the message's meaning. Another P&O executive, Frank Fogarty, said he received Scavone's e-mail and did not doubt Scavone sent it.
Fogarty, the company's senior vice president for marketing, said Scavone intended to tell Miami officials that, "as far as they should be concerned, they should just assume they're working for the same company they always have."

DP World previously agreed it will not control or manage any U.S. port operations it acquired until May 1 or until the outcome of the unusual, broader security investigation into the ports deal by the Bush administration.

"We don't know the outcome of this," Fogarty said. "DP World owns us, but we're operating without any control or direction from DP World. Until we hear otherwise or until they dispose of us _ however they wish to do that _ that's the way it's going to remain."

P&O Ports North America is the U.S. subsidiary of London-based Peninsular & Oriental, which DP World purchased for $6.8 billion. The sale of the British firm was finalized last week.

The Miami port company is half-owned by P&O Ports Florida, a subsidiary of P&O Ports Gulf Port, which itself is a subsidiary of P&O Ports North America. The Miami port company's other owners are Eller & Company Inc. and Florida Stevedoring Inc.

So basically this officer said we aren't going to immediately sell off the company, so for the time being P&O still half owns you, so continue doing what you do. When we do sell, it'll probably take some time.

I mean obviously the email was not some insidious smoking gun, saying "A HA! We've fooled the evil Americans!", but rather attempted to guarentee that there wasn't going to be any turmoil before it was sold, which may indeed take a while. Basically, go on with business as usual, we'll handle things on the top end.

It is incredible how much you are grasping at straws.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Cite? EDIT: Never mind, I found it... look at the next post below.

And of course they are going to serve as management until they can get it sold! Duh! What else would you have done? No one work the ports?

they said they wouldnt sell at a loss, (which I cant blame them since it shouldnt have gotten through so fast to be approved), and because many say they overpaid and now their held over a barrel so they wont be able to get fair market value....so they wont be able to sell under their self imposed guidelines.

They SHOULDNT HAVE gotten to that point to be able to say it'll take awhile to sell....what does that mean 10 years? It is unacceptable and exactly what I stated.....SO of course, since Im right, the house will pass legislation tomorrow to stop this garbage and the Senate will cave under pressure too so that the government can stop this, liek the should have with Siphius(sp?)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

they said they wouldnt sell at a loss, (which I cant blame them since it shouldnt have gotten through so fast to be approved), and because many say they overpaid and now their held over a barrel so they wont be able to get fair market value....so they wont be able to sell under their self imposed guidelines.

So you want them to sell at a loss? I believe they actually said they would sell at fair market value. The problem is that there are NO US companies that do this sort of thing. I don't think Congress would approve them selling to a Chinese or Singaporean country which would be, at least, partially owned by the government.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you want them to sell at a loss? I believe they actually said they would sell at fair market value. The problem is that there are NO US companies that do this sort of thing. I don't think Congress would approve them selling to a Chinese or Singaporean country which would be, at least, partially owned by the government.

its a double edged sword...they shouldnt be in this situation at all because they should still be investiaging this under Siphius...so here we are and they MUST sell, but not at fair market value because FMV at this point would be at a loss, possibly a great loss (which I dont blame them for being upset about), so in essence they actually end up getting to control our ports which Im not okay with for one day (i exaggerate therebut you get it)

[Glengoyne]

You're right Flasch.

This plan to have the Arabs take over our ports makes the Halliburton No Bid Contract dealings look like they were business as usual.

Oh nevermind.


I'll stick with ISiddiqui's assesment. Tempest in a tea-pot.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You're right Flasch.

This plan to have the Arabs take over our ports makes the Halliburton No Bid Contract dealings look like they were business as usual.

Oh nevermind.


I'll stick with ISiddiqui's assesment. Tempest in a tea-pot.

i dont like no bid contracts either, although that vetting shouldnt be simply based on cost....some deeper analysis should be thought about simply than price.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Tempest in a tea-pot.

even if it takes YEARS to sell? what is the timeline before you say, wow, Flasch was right? i just would like to know in advance.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

even if it takes YEARS to sell? what is the timeline before you say, wow, Flasch was right? i just would like to know in advance.

It may indeed take years, it's the business world, ffs! And there is no timeline for me to say Flasch was right. You've already gotten it all wrong.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch. This company could merrilly run all of our freaking ports for the next hundred years, and two things would happen. My safety likely wouldn't be compromised one iota, and you wouldn't ever be right, at least not on this issue.

[Flasch186]

1-4% of the containers are being looked at now, and we want to let some other country do it? We should improve it ourselves....i cant believe that people are for letting another government run our ports. it flabbergasts me, and I hope congress shuts it down...tomorrow. AND the 800 million goes to the Coast Guard.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1-4% of the containers are being looked at now, and we want to let some other country do it? We should improve it ourselves....i cant believe that people are for letting another government run our ports. it flabbergasts me, and I hope congress shuts it down...tomorrow. AND the 800 million goes to the Coast Guard.

The port company is NOT looking at containers. How many times must this be pointed out? They are loading and unloading containers onto ships. The US authorities are the ones looking at containers!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

:dito:

[Flasch186]

no sir, that is not correct...the coast guard organizers security that the port management executes while the Coast Guard only becomes involved when called upon or on their own volition. I have read other than what you describe.

[Flasch186]

this must be what youre talking about:

Originally Posted by realitycheck.org

The truth -- which is being withheld from Americans -- is that US Customs and Border Protection screens the data and information for all of the millions of cargo containers arriving in the US each year; and closely scrutinizes and examines all shipments identified as high risk. The CBP has developed a multilayered process to target high-risk shipments and provides a fast lane for legitimate cargo. In fact, according to the CBP, examinations of sea containers are a small part of this process.

The CBP goal is not to search five percent, 10 percent, or even 50 percent of the cargo at our nation's borders and ports of entry. US Customs and Border Protection thoroughly screens and examines 100% of the shipments that pose a risk to our country and they are doing that today. The goal is to screen these shipments before they depart for the United States whenever possible. There are US CBP officers throughout the world working with foreign governments in screening shipments leaving those countries

CBP receives electronic bill of lading/manifest data for approximately 98 percent of the sea containers before they arrive at US seaports. CBP uses this data to first identify the lowest risk cargo being shipped by long-established and trusted importers.

but that only focuses on supposition, assumption, and targeted analysis. The rest IS left to those running the ports. Im not ok with that alone. They are banking so much on manifests, paperwork, trust of other port authorities, etc. Then those that run the ports are the last line of defense...that should be us.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/

What’s the significance of a foreign company operating terminals in a U.S. port?

While foreign and U.S. companies are able to lease terminals in American ports, the ports remain publicly owned. Each company is responsible for moving ships and goods in and out of their terminal, and may even hire a private security firm, but the U.S. Customs and Border Protection remains responsible for checking the cargo and the U.S. Coast Guard is charged with overseeing security. These responsibilities are mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. An analogous relationship may be seen in U.S. airports, where foreign airlines may lease a terminal, but the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security.

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry, Flasch, these port terminal companies have nothing to do with checking the cargo. They simply move goods in and out of the port. Like in the Airports, Delta isn't responsible (or allowed) for checking every bag, the TSA is responsible for that.

[ISiddiqui]

The Council on Foriegn Relations is a non-partisan site.

[Flasch186]

i must say im intrigued, however all I can find is partisan hack material. do you have any links that talk about responsibilities that is not affiliated with one side or the other?


eDIT: you read my mind

[Flasch186]

Now, can we terminate the lease at anytime without warning?

[Buccaneer]

Are you two still at it?

(Imran, just let him talk in circles, he'll eventually start arguing with himself. )

[Flasch186]

this line is horse crap considering that I also heard them say that they coud not talk to DHS, or NSA, or the CIA in depth due to confidentiality reasons so the threat assessment can only be incomplete anyways:

Speaking at CFR on January 19, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and CIFUS Chairman Robert Kimmitt said his committee does "good job of assessing the risk" of this sort of foreign investment.

[ISiddiqui]

Not unless the contract is for a set period of time and has limits on termination of a lease.

And wasn't the Congressional action basically a landlord getting all pissy over a sublet? But the US doesn't want to run the loading and offloading of ship and would rather leave that to private companies.

[st.cronin]

Phil Plantier

[Flasch186]

so I ask again, can we terminate he lease at any time? They port management has NOTHING to do with security or a security plans execution?


If that is true, and the site you cite is truly objective and not slanted, then I change my stance and am ok with foreign investment in the ports BUT I am still not fond of a governments control of that. Im not sure how to reconcile that in this case but I dont think governments should own ports HOWEVER it seems that it is not ownership in this case but a lease thereby if it can be broken without warning at anytime....I feel somewhat better about allowing such a proposition.

I believe I would now vote ok to this, if all of the above i stated was true. Being able to break the lease at a days notice is very important to me.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so I ask again, can we terminate he lease at any time? They port management has NOTHING to do with security or a security plans execution?


If that is true, and the site you cite is truly objective and not slanted, then I change my stance and am ok with foreign investment in the ports BUT I am still not fond of a governments control of that. Im not sure how to reconcile that in this case but I dont think governments should own ports HOWEVER it seems that it is not ownership in this case but a lease thereby if it can be broken without warning at anytime....I feel somewhat better about allowing such a proposition.

I believe I would now vote ok to this, if all of the above i stated was true. Being able to break the lease at a days notice is very important to me.

Imran, see?

[ISiddiqui]

:laugh:

(that's supposed to be a laughing smily? WTF?)

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Imran, see?

see what?:samuray-chino:

[ISiddiqui]

No, I like the smilies, just not that one.

[ISiddiqui]

Freaking time post bug!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

:laugh:

(that's supposed to be a laughing smily? WTF?)

I think there's already a "smilies suck" thread.

[Flasch186]

welp I guess Im back to being against the Dubai ports deal if it matters, considering that it was the Coast Guard is the security anyways, rationale, that the supporters touted:

Coast Guard warns ships of inspections
Spokesman: Units must balance between protection, commerce

From Kathleen Koch
CNN
Saturday, May 20, 2006; Posted: 5:52 p.m. EDT (21:52 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Coast Guard sometimes alerts large commercial ships they will be searched as they approach port so as not to burden shipping companies financially, the Coast Guard acknowledged to CNN on Saturday.

The New York Times first reported the story earlier in the day, saying that commanders of some ports provided up to 24 hours notice to ships to keep commerce moving.

At the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach in California, the Coast Guard gives as much notice as it can, said Lt. Tony Migliorini, a spokesman for the port. "It's kind of a balancing act," he told CNN.

Commanders especially give notice of dockside safety inspections, so that shipping companies don't have their longshoremen on the dock with nothing to do until the inspection is complete, Migliorini said.

Even during boardings at sea, the port typically notifies ship management in advance that the Coast Guard is coming aboard, Migliorini said.

Migliorini said the Coast Guard boards vessels for a variety of security and safety reasons.

Those safety reasons include cross-checking crew and cargo lists with those with the port, as well as allowing dogs to sniff for bombs and to check for radiation, officials told The New York Times. The searches can last between 30 minutes and 12 hours, the paper reported.

Former Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen Flynn, a critic of tipping off ships, told The New York Times it was counterproductive to give notice. "If you say, 'heads up, when you get close to port in two days we're going to board you,' that sort of defeats the purpose of boarding," he told the paper.

The Coast Guard gives little specific information about its homeland security mission, other than that it "is at a heightened state of alert protecting more than 361 ports and 95,000 miles of coastline," according to the Coast Guard Web site.

It states that in addition to protecting against the infiltration of illegal drugs, aliens, firearms and weapons of mass destruction, the Coast Guard also protects "ports, the flow of commerce, and the marine transportation system from terrorism."

There are few details of the Coast Guard's port security mission, other than an explanation that its port security units are "staffed primarily with selected reservists" who "provide waterborne and limited land-based protection for shipping and critical port facilities," according to the Web site.

In a statement released Saturday, Cmdr. Paul Thorne, chief of the Coast Guard's Foreign and Offshore Vessels Division, said that whether the mission is safety, security or just a random check, "this mission objective might be enhanced by the withholding of information from ship management or by the sharing of information with ship management."
Notice varies from port to port

The decision on whether to notify a vessel and under what circumstances is left up to the port captain, and varies from port to port, Thorne said.

A Coast Guard spokesman in New York said all vessels boarded for security reasons there undergo surprise inspections, according to The New York Times.

"If they're from a foreign port and trying to get into the United States, they should know they might get boarded -- without warning," Mike Lutz told the paper.

However, The Times reported that though the port security chief in San Francisco, California, said vessels get notice, Capt. William J. Uberti of the port told the paper that shippers and carriers were "not supposed to have a clue" about random boardings.

There are currently 45 port captains overseeing the nation's 361 ports, Coast Guard spokesman Daniel L. Temper said.

Port security has been a hot topic since the furor arising over a President Bush-backed proposal in February to allow the British company P&O to transfer management operations at six ports to a UAE state-owned company, DP World.

The deal was widely criticized, especially after the Coast Guard warned in a report of "intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger."

DP World eventually relented and said it was transferring the management operations to a U.S. entity.

Boarding and searching ships has always been part of the duties of the Coast Guard, even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Coast Guard officials say that since then, a larger percentage of the boardings are security-related.

[Dutch]

The article states that all ships that are boarded for security inspections are "surprise inspections". So from what the article says, it seems the former employee who is hoping for "whistle-blowing" status is talking about advanced notice for safety-inspections? The article is really confusing with all the 'he said, she said' crap. In any event, DP has already diverted all it's terrorists to ports they operate in Australia and Europe and will not be on American soil. So we're safe from the 'brown people' (sic) for now.

[duckman]

Fear the brown people!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The article states that all ships that are boarded for security inspections are "surprise inspections". So from what the article says, it seems the former employee who is hoping for "whistle-blowing" status is talking about advanced notice for safety-inspections? The article is really confusing with all the 'he said, she said' crap. In any event, DP has already diverted all it's terrorists to ports they operate in Australia and Europe and will not be on American soil. So we're safe from the 'brown people' (sic) for now.

Dutch or Duckman, I never once have raised race as an issue. Just wanted to point that out.

So the % of safey inspections that could collaterally find other stuff is no longer a part of the equation. Seems silly for cops to let people know at bars where the DUI stop is on the road up the street so they can go elsewhere. My opinion, not based on coloring of the ship or the people.

EDIT to add: isnt raising race or crying Racism at every turn, or whenever the news might not support your stance a cop out?

[Glengoyne]

no need for this crud

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

/cough Bullshit /cough

That is precisely what the opposition to this is about. This is the sand nigger thread isn't it?

Dude. WAY over the line. you passed it a few miles back.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Dude. WAY over the line. you passed it a few miles back.

Hey I call 'em like I see 'em. In my opinion that is exactly what those who opposed that deal were essentially saying. I'm just bringing it to their attention.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Hey I call 'em like I see 'em. In my opinion that is exactly what those who opposed that deal were essentially saying. I'm just bringing it to their attention.

Welp, I disagree. My thoughts go much deeper than skin color, Im sorry that you feel that this issue is based on that. I dont view the border battle as a race thing, nor is this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

/cough Bullshit /cough

That is precisely what the opposition to this is about. This is the sand nigger thread isn't it?

......however, when the opposition makes a point, your easy out (which Im surprised comes out of you) is racism. That is base and lack of thought, especially when the opposition (in this case - me) is open minded enough to flip flop when the facts bore fruit that I was wrong on the issue.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

......however, when the opposition makes a point, your easy out (which Im surprised comes out of you) is racism. That is base and lack of thought, especially when the opposition (in this case - me) is open minded enough to flip flop when the facts bore fruit that the I was wrong on the issue.

It certainly wasn't my easy out. I've got a lot of posts in this thread. As for refuting your post about the advanced warnings to ships. It has pretty close to zero to do with the topic at hand. It doesn't matter if an American, English, German, or Dubai company manages the ports, security doesn't change. All this post did is remind me of one of the more embarrasing things this country has done in a while.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It certainly wasn't my easy out. I've got a lot of posts in this thread. As for refuting your post about the advanced warnings to ships. It has pretty close to zero to do with the topic at hand. It doesn't matter if an American, English, German, or Dubai company manages the ports, security doesn't change. All this post did is remind me of one of the more embarrasing things this country has done in a while.

the security doesnt change? youre right!! It was worse than I thought to begin with before I read that article. I thought that their checks for "bad" materials were coupled with the possibility that during routine safety checks they would have their eyes open for stuff trying to be snuck through too. IOW, instead of 35 checks/day it was 35 + 22 safety checks....instead were back down to the 35. Makes sense? What trying to stop "bad" materials from getting into the country be it from crossing a border, or coming in a ship, or being shot over in a missle has anything to do with race, I dont know. I just think Americans (of any color or religion) should be responsible for the borders of America. Thats all and I think it does have something to do with this thread.

however, in retrospect I will admit that on the day we all feel good about the Coast Guards' security REGARDING the checking of container ships coming in Ill be more than happy to turn over management of the ports to the Dubai company, like I was convinced of due to this particular thread.