Racists take note

[Plane]

The security card used by the DOD is made by Schlumberger.

And?

Dubai has a considerably more recent history of providing assistance to America's enemies.

That does nothing to answer the charge that you would paint those who opposed the deal as racist, period, as per the title of this thread. And that, old friend, is bullshit.

More recent and worse than the French?

Au Contraire!

[hnumpah]

Is Schlumberger owned by France, as DPW is owned by Dubai?

And thumbing their noses at us does not equate to providing financial assistance to our enemies by laundering their money.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Way to go, Xavier. You tell 'em. Need to keep American security in the hands of Americans. We can't trust them foreigners. Them pinko commie terrorist son of bitches better not mess with us, right Jim Bob?

(Yeah, that was all sarcasm.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, this is not a question with one single answer. It is conceivable that a an Emiri company could defend the US as well as or better than an American company.

But I would think that a company whose workers were Americans and whose families lived in the area being defended and who had nowhere else to flee to if the individuals working for said company were offered a fat bribe to look the other way would have better odds of defending the port better.

I would say, hire Americans and only Americans, preferable with large families that live in the immediate area of the port for maximum results. The odds are better.

Other circumstances (and there is an infinite number of these) could make a more important difference

We are fortunate that the foreigners who worked on the Manhattan project were loyal to the US.

Kissinger and Brezinski were less fortunate choices.
 Still, both were better than the execrable Brothers Dulles.

Oh yes and by the way, "racism" is not a factor here, unless one considers Emiris and Americnas to be of different races. "Ethnocentrism" would be the more appropriate term, I should think.

[Amianthus]

But I would think that a company whose workers were Americans and whose families lived in the area being defended and who had nowhere else to flee to if the individuals working for said company were offered a fat bribe to look the other way would have better odds of defending the port better.

You do realize that DPW was only going to be handling the management, and the actual employees were, and would have continued to be, Americans living in the area of the ports?

[Xavier_Onassis]

You do realize that DPW was only going to be handling the management, and the actual employees were, and would have continued to be, Americans living in the area of the ports?
===================================================
Even so, the management could have been bribed to put less competent workers on duty at certain vulnerable times, could they not?

The question is, why trust the Other when you have the option of trusting your Own?

Would you not expect the Emir of Dubai to have Emiri bodyguards? Would you say that he was a 'racist' if he insisted on them?

How about if he had Emiri bodyguards that were hired by some American? If you were the Emir, whom would you choose?

[Amianthus]

The question is, why trust the Other when you have the option of trusting your Own?

Well, security would still have been handled by the US Coast Guard.

Don't consider them to be "our Own"?

The fact is, the management was transferring from one foreign company to another. Don't know why it was suddenly a big deal, when it wasn't a big deal for the first company to be foreign owned. Only difference seems to be one was based in western Europe and the other based in the Middle East.

[hnumpah]

Don't know why it was suddenly a big deal, when it wasn't a big deal for the first company to be foreign owned. Only difference seems to be one was based in western Europe and the other based in the Middle East.

To borrow an annoying phrase from elsewhere, "Bzzzzt! Wrong!"

P&O was a British company, but was not owned by the British government.

DPW is owned by the government of Dubai.

Thus, whether the government was friendly to us or not does make a difference.

[_JS]

Holston Army Ammunition is the largest capacity supplier of high performance explosives in the United States. They make explosive powders that trigger nuclear weapons. They are the only site in the United States that makes HMX and RDX.

Guess who runs the plant? Royal Ordnance, BAE. A British defence company.

[hnumpah]

Guess who runs the plant? Royal Ordnance, BAE. A British defence company.

And?

Again, does the British government own them outright, as the government of Dubai owns DPW?

How recently has the British government backed our enemies against us?

Yabbut, yabbut, yabbut...

Sometimes I wonder what it takes to get the point across.

[yellow_crane]

The reaction to Dubai seemed to me to be more public than partisan, when the story hit.

In a miasma of secrets held by the administration, and with a compliant press, the Dubai incident almost seemed to be crystal clear, seemd to be one of clarity, relatively speaking.  Here was one incident that we seemed to understand--duh, don't put Middle Easterners in charge of things directly supporting our home security.  It seemed to leap out of the gears, with the immediate attention-getting of a leak, though it was just routine, as far as the administration was concerned.  The actual reaction of the White House seemed one of being numbed and surprised.

Most Americans' knowledge of the Middle East is meager and marked by sterotypical metaphor.
There has always been a secretive quality regarding the oil and the deals we have with them.  I doubt one American in half a million knew anything of the Bush family dealings with the Saudis until Michael Moore put it in a documentary.

All that devisive talk, all those references to "with us or against us," those images of Arabs at airports being shuttled off into side rooms on the news, etc.  Partly because of this cumulative inculcation regarding "us and them," we reacted in kind, much like we should have.  

I think the administration was caught between their dire, propagandistic messaging and their real back room dealings, much like how Osama Bin Ladin was pimped as the second-coming of Satan, only to have that story peter off into nothing, capped by when Bush causually remarked to a reporter one day that he wasn't much interested in Osama, that he was old (and unimportant) news.

Dubai in charge of our security, at least, was a stellar moment of an easily grasped news story, and gave Americans a chance to offer an opinion about something concrete, and was so welcome that it flew over the heads of even those anally politically correct about matters racial.

[Amianthus]

Dubai in charge of our security, at least, was a stellar moment of an easily grasped news story, and gave Americans a chance to offer an opinion about something concrete, and was so welcome that it flew over the heads of even those anally politically correct about matters racial.

Except, of course, that security at those ports would continue to be performed by the Coast Guard.

[_JS]

And?

Again, does the British government own them outright, as the government of Dubai owns DPW?

How recently has the British government backed our enemies against us?

Yabbut, yabbut, yabbut...

Sometimes I wonder what it takes to get the point across.

The most profitable aspec of BAE is that they supply and support the Royal Saudi Air Force, so I suppose it depends upon your definition of "enemy." They also have arms deals with Zimbabwe and Israel, so again it is up to your definition.

Why does it have to be government-owned? Private enterprise can't have a hidden agenda? Al-Qaeda is not a government entity, are they?

When did the government of Dubai support our enemies? Should that prevent us from our continuing to support them with high tech weapons equipment?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is, the management was transferring from one foreign company to another. Don't know why it was suddenly a big deal, when it wasn't a big deal for the first company to be foreign owned. Only difference seems to be one was based in western Europe and the other based in the Middle East.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
So far as I am concerned, US security should be always handled by US companies. If the British company wasn't a big deal, I suspect that was because this fact was hidden from Americans.

I continue to believe that if I were the Emir of Dubai, I would want Dubai bodyguards. As an American citizen, I would prefer that everyone protecting me and my country also be Americans.

It would be a LOT cheaper for the US Army to hire Mexicans or Philipinos or Hondurans as mercenaries in the US Army, and yet we do not do this. I am all for us not doing this, jusrt as I am against Dubai owning anyone responsible for US security.

[Amianthus]

So far as I am concerned, US security should be always handled by US companies. If the British company wasn't a big deal, I suspect that was because this fact was hidden from Americans.

You still gloss over the fact that port security was and would have continued to be provided by the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service - both of whom are wholly owned subsidiaries of the US Government.

In addition, the management of over 80% of the US ports is handled by foreign companies right now. The ports that are managed by foreign companies continue to be owned by the US, and security continues to be provided by the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.

[BT]

You still gloss over the fact that port security was and would have continued to be provided by the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service - both of whom are wholly owned subsidiaries of the US Government.

Of course he does. That would negate the impact of the primary purpose of tha story being positioned front page as long as it was.

The sole purpose was to put a chink in the GOPS credentials concerning National Defense.

And it succeeded until the next commercial.