The Liberals have lost it

[Montgomery Burns]

What the hell were they thinking? Turning over a major Canadian port to a country with ties to terrorists? Duh.

Dubai Ports World has lease at Port of Vancouver

Newbie, what's going on?!

[cybercoma]

Care to explain your racist stance on this issue? What does the business administration of a port have to do with the Canadian Coast Guard, Customs and the Canadian Military inspecting shipments?

There will be no breach of security, since they won't be handling security.

[cybercoma]

Actually it's not the same at all, they're leasing a terminal. God forbid Arabs do business in North America.

[Montgomery Burns]

You can shove your "racist" claim you know where. Whatsa matter? Americans do it--bad. Canadians do it--good.

Fricking smug morally superior hypocritical Canadians...

Canadian Coast Guard inspects shipments at port controlled by UAE--good.

US Coast Guard inspects shipements of port controlled by UAE--bad.

And it is similar. Don't you know what a lease is?

[geoffrey]

You can shove your "racist" claim you know where. Whatsa matter? Americans do it--bad. Canadians do it--good.

Fricking smug morally superior hypocritical Canadians...

And it is similar. Don't you know what a lease is?

Interesting... I bet a few Liberal folks are beating their heads after going to Bush's throat of this. Instead of criticising their government though, they'll defend them. Wait and see...

[Cameron]

Gents, gents. The big problem with the US and UAE and their ports, is that the owner or operator (in the US case it would be the UAE company) is in charge of security within the terminal gates. When the ship is away from the dock the US Coast Guard is in charge of security, when the goods leave the terminal security is in the hands of local (or who ever) enforcement. So the big debate is concerns that an Arab company has control over the security at the port and of the goods. Every governor except Florida's as made an objection to the UAE company taking over control of the ports. That includes Governors that are Dem and Rep. Florida's Governor is Jeb Bush, FYI.

I don't think this is the case here in Canada. But don't quote me.

[uOttawaMan]

All I can say here is racism for the loss.

God forbid a foreign interest invests in our country.

Tell you what, I'll take your stance seriously when you start a movement to get all Canadian companies to withdraw their investments in overseas ventures, and completely cripple our economy by become totally isolationist.

[newbie]

I won't defend anybody who brokered this deal. I think the comment in today's Globe and Mail sums it up rather nicely.

Vancouver's ability to safeguard against terrorism is crucial for the continent. On two significant occasions in the past, it has been the place where terrorists have plotted mass murder.

In 1999, Algerian al-Qaeda member Ahmed Ressam cooked up a massive bomb in Vancouver, before being caught at the border. He later said he had been hoping to kill Americans by exploding the bomb in the Los Angeles Airport.

In 1985, Sikh terrorists placed deadly bombs aboard two Air-India jets at Vancouver's airport. They exploded overseas to kill 331 people. No one has ever been convicted in the slayings.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

[August1991]

What the hell were they thinking? Turning over a major Canadian port to a country with ties to terrorists?

What the hell are we thinking? Using plastic bags made with oil from Iran?

MB, if we should boycott Muslims, then let us do so. If we are at war with Muslims, then let us declare war.

MB, is that what you want? Why?

The big problem with the US and UAE and their ports, is that the owner or operator (in the US case it would be the UAE company) is in charge of security within the terminal gates. When the ship is away from the dock the US Coast Guard is in charge of security, when the goods leave the terminal security is in the hands of local (or who ever) enforcement. So the big debate is concerns that an Arab company has control over the security at the port and of the goods.

The "big" problem is security within the port? Really?

Sorry, Cameron, I disagree. Regardless of who owns a port, a building, a home or a car, the FBI can go wherever they want if they have probable cause, or can convince a judge to give them a search warrant. (The RCMP has its own restrictions, I believe - suspicions of arms, drugs and request for driver's licence. FTA Lawyer will correct me.)

[Montgomery Burns]

August1991, perhaps I should have used sarcasm tags. Newbie said that Bush had "lost it". I am merely pointing out the that perhaps the Liberals "lost it" by doing virtually the same thing.

One can make reasonably make the claim that Canada is doing the same thing as Bush.

It makes the Canadian left's "we are morally superior than the US" claim look hypocritical.

[scribblet]

August1991, perhaps I should have used sarcasm tags. Newbie said that Bush had "lost it". I am merely pointing out the that perhaps the Liberals "lost it" by doing virtually the same thing.

One can make reasonably make the claim that Canada is doing the same thing as Bush.

It makes the Canadian left's "we are morally superior than the US" claim look hypocritical.

It sure does, usual double standards, its only wrong if the U.S. or Bush does it. I'm pretty sure if Bush was vetoing the deal, he would be wrong.

But should we or the U.S. really outsource the running of our Ports to any foreign gov't. I'd say not

[BubberMiley]

Besides, Bush didn't "lose it" because he never "had it". Scott McLellen admitted he didn't even know about the deal (even though it was negotiated unilaterally by the white house) until it was reported in the media.

[Montgomery Burns]

I guess Chretien and Martin never had "it" either.

Right?

They refused to even tell the public about this--unlike Scott McLellan.

[Argus]

The big problem with the US and UAE and their ports, is that the owner or operator (in the US case it would be the UAE company) is in charge of security within the terminal gates. When the ship is away from the dock the US Coast Guard is in charge of security, when the goods leave the terminal security is in the hands of local (or who ever) enforcement. So the big debate is concerns that an Arab company has control over the security at the port and of the goods.

The "big" problem is security within the port? Really?

Sorry, Cameron, I disagree. Regardless of who owns a port, a building, a home or a car, the FBI can go wherever they want if they have probable cause, or can convince a judge to give them a search warrant. (The RCMP has its own restrictions, I believe - suspicions of arms, drugs and request for driver's licence. FTA Lawyer will correct me.)

Nice, in theory. In reality, we know that the RCMP are greatly underfunded, and Paul Martin Jr eliminated the ports police some years ago. According to the Senate most of our ports are in the hands of organized crime. Government enforcement of laws within the ports is next to non-existent.

The problem with an Arab company controlling our ports is fairly obvious. Virtually all terrorism originates with Muslims. And while people like to suggest this is only a few radicals it goes far deeper than that. Very powerful people in the Muslim - principally Arab world - are funding and aiding terrorism. The Saudis seem to be supplying a huge proportion of the world's suicide bombers, for example, and they are often well-educated and well off. It is not beyond the realm of the possible - even likely - that some of those in the hierarchy of this company feel sympathy for terrorist groups, and might be willing to aid them, if only by a wink, a nudge, and looking the other way, as they infiltrate this company and make use of it to aid them in getting terrorists and explosives into North America. That is the chief concern in both Canada and the US. And it is a legitimate concern.

[Leafless]

Argus

You wrote- " if only by a wink, a nudge and looking the other way, as they infiltrate this company and make use of it to aid them in getting terrorist and explosives into North America. This is the chief concern in both Canada and the U.S. And it is a legitimate concern."

Then how come this already hasn't happened as Dubai already operates ports in New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia?

You can also extend your logic to smuggling terrorist over in cargo holds of cruise ships, commercial air liners or just dropping them off by small watercraft along Atlantic or Pacific seaboard coastlines.

To organize a large scale attack of what you are describing is next to impossible without detection and would more than likely if successful to any degree could guaratee waking up all those sleeping nukes.

[Argus]

Argus

You wrote- " if only by a wink, a nudge and looking the other way, as they infiltrate this company and make use of it to aid them in getting terrorist and explosives into North America. This is the chief concern in both Canada and the U.S. And it is a legitimate concern."

Then how come this already hasn't happened as Dubai already operates ports in New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia?

Actually, they don't. They have just bought the company which does so, however, thus the fuss in the US about an Arab company controlling US ports. Congress may or may not decide to disallow the sale.

You can also extend your logic to smuggling terrorist over in cargo holds of cruise ships, commercial air liners or just dropping them off by small watercraft along Atlantic or Pacific seaboard coastlines.

Which is why we should have secure ports and a capable coast guard. Duh.

To organize a large scale attack of what you are describing is next to impossible without detection and would more than likely if successful to any degree could guaratee waking up all those sleeping nukes.

What large scale? I didn't say large scale. I said slipping in terrorists in twos and threes, not a whole boat load.

[cybercoma]

You can shove your "racist" claim you know where. Whatsa matter? Americans do it--bad. Canadians do it--good.

Fricking smug morally superior hypocritical Canadians...

Canadian Coast Guard inspects shipments at port controlled by UAE--good.

US Coast Guard inspects shipements of port controlled by UAE--bad.

And it is similar. Don't you know what a lease is?

The American deal isn't bad, when did I say that?

[cybercoma]

Gents, gents. The big problem with the US and UAE and their ports, is that the owner or operator (in the US case it would be the UAE company) is in charge of security within the terminal gates. When the ship is away from the dock the US Coast Guard is in charge of security, when the goods leave the terminal security is in the hands of local (or who ever) enforcement. So the big debate is concerns that an Arab company has control over the security at the port and of the goods. Every governor except Florida's as made an objection to the UAE company taking over control of the ports. That includes Governors that are Dem and Rep. Florida's Governor is Jeb Bush, FYI.

I don't think this is the case here in Canada. But don't quote me.

Actually, customs inspects the freight when they think something is "suspicious"...and no, UAE doesn't control US customs or the department of homeland security.

[cybercoma]

I won't defend anybody who brokered this deal. I think the comment in today's Globe and Mail sums it up rather nicely.

Vancouver's ability to safeguard against terrorism is crucial for the continent. On two significant occasions in the past, it has been the place where terrorists have plotted mass murder.

In 1999, Algerian al-Qaeda member Ahmed Ressam cooked up a massive bomb in Vancouver, before being caught at the border. He later said he had been hoping to kill Americans by exploding the bomb in the Los Angeles Airport.

In 1985, Sikh terrorists placed deadly bombs aboard two Air-India jets at Vancouver's airport. They exploded overseas to kill 331 people. No one has ever been convicted in the slayings.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

What exactly does this have to do with a UAE company?

Let me guess, 3 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had UAE passports, that must disqualify a company from the same country of purchasing business outside their borders, no?

[cybercoma]

Besides, Bush didn't "lose it" because he never "had it". Scott McLellen admitted he didn't even know about the deal (even though it was negotiated unilaterally by the white house) until it was reported in the media.

The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

[cybercoma]

The big problem with the US and UAE and their ports, is that the owner or operator (in the US case it would be the UAE company) is in charge of security within the terminal gates. When the ship is away from the dock the US Coast Guard is in charge of security, when the goods leave the terminal security is in the hands of local (or who ever) enforcement. So the big debate is concerns that an Arab company has control over the security at the port and of the goods.

The "big" problem is security within the port? Really?

Sorry, Cameron, I disagree. Regardless of who owns a port, a building, a home or a car, the FBI can go wherever they want if they have probable cause, or can convince a judge to give them a search warrant. (The RCMP has its own restrictions, I believe - suspicions of arms, drugs and request for driver's licence. FTA Lawyer will correct me.)

Nice, in theory. In reality, we know that the RCMP are greatly underfunded, and Paul Martin Jr eliminated the ports police some years ago. According to the Senate most of our ports are in the hands of organized crime. Government enforcement of laws within the ports is next to non-existent.

The problem with an Arab company controlling our ports is fairly obvious. Virtually all terrorism originates with Muslims. And while people like to suggest this is only a few radicals it goes far deeper than that. Very powerful people in the Muslim - principally Arab world - are funding and aiding terrorism. The Saudis seem to be supplying a huge proportion of the world's suicide bombers, for example, and they are often well-educated and well off. It is not beyond the realm of the possible - even likely - that some of those in the hierarchy of this company feel sympathy for terrorist groups, and might be willing to aid them, if only by a wink, a nudge, and looking the other way, as they infiltrate this company and make use of it to aid them in getting terrorists and explosives into North America. That is the chief concern in both Canada and the US. And it is a legitimate concern.

Except that this is simply a business transaction with one company purchasing another. The staffing at the ports will go virtually untouched. I wouldn't expect to see boatloads of Arabs showing up to work in these ports simply because Dubai Ports World owns them now.

Security will be no more compromised with this situation as the administration of the ports has nothing to do with customs inspections. In fact, the Canadian Coast Guard and the military are often involved in tracking ships before they even make it to port when they have information of potential problems (most notably drugs if you want to find news pieces on this). Once shipments make it here, it is Canadian Customs duty to check the cargo, not the ports. Dubai Ports World would have next to nothing to do with security in the sense of someone trying to smuggle things into Canada.

Your assertion that the RCMP is strapped for cash, although valid in other circumstances, is nothing more than a red-herring for an underlying racist agenda that would see Arab corporations and companies banned from doing business in North America for no other reason than ethnicity.

[newbie]

We could do what the US is doing. Covening congressional studies on the matter. And how many containers are checked thru the Vancouver port. 5% like the U.S. That leaves a 95% unchecked. The terrorists only have to be successful once. We have to be successful EVERYTIME. I mention the G&M article as it points out the two foiled terrorists attacks on the west coast. All it takes is for one of these employees to look the other way.

[cybercoma]

We could do what the US is doing. Covening congressional studies on the matter. And how many containers are checked thru the Vancouver port. 5% like the U.S. That leaves a 95% unchecked. The terrorists only have to be successful once. We have to be successful EVERYTIME. I mention the G&M article as it points out the two foiled terrorists attacks on the west coast. All it takes is for one of these employees to look the other way.

Port employees don't inspect containers, customs does.

[Montgomery Burns]

You can shove your "racist" claim you know where. Whatsa matter? Americans do it--bad. Canadians do it--good.

Fricking smug morally superior hypocritical Canadians...

Canadian Coast Guard inspects shipments at port controlled by UAE--good.

US Coast Guard inspects shipements of port controlled by UAE--bad.

And it is similar. Don't you know what a lease is?

The American deal isn't bad, when did I say that?

I checked Newbie's thread and you did not say that.

But why did you call me a racist?

I guess I should have been clearer. I was merely mocking the Canadian liberals who were bashing Bush for doing the same thing that Canada's Liberal Party did.

[gerryhatrick]

You can shove your "racist" claim you know where. Whatsa matter? Americans do it--bad. Canadians do it--good.

Here's a clue. He was giving the same response given by the US Rightwingers who support the deal. See...you made a compartitive joke, and so did he!

Fricking smug morally superior hypocritical Canadians...

Oh no...we're all so grateful that an American honors us as you do by your presence here! America is so much better than Canada, really! Allow me to apologize to you for all of Canada for being smug and morally superior! Clearly you are morally superior! You have led the way in moral superiority with uneccessary war and widespread torture in foreign gulags.

You ARE American, correct? You're not one of those self-loathing Canadians who wants to live in America but is too lazy to move so you tear down Canada, are you?