Carl Tyler's Blog

1 - Glad you're on your way to being converted...

Sadly, you are also in agreement with Rush Limbaugh!! It's kind of funny to see the left side of the aisle now concerned with national security. The sad thing is that they would not dare say that we should target (or profile) UAE people entering airports. But then they have turned right around and are now saying that all of the UAE are suspected terrorists who cannot be trusted. It's one or the other, either they are suspected terrorists or they're not.

2 - I will have to disagree with you. There is nothing racist about it. There is no fear that the British company would do anything to hurt our country, but there is a fear, real or imagined, that a company within the borders of a potential enemy might. It is not about race or religion, it is about the unknown actions of government leaders.

I did not even know that a British Company was running the ports until this started blowing up. Bloody Limeys

3 - @2 Well London was blown up by fellow British citizens, so no reason why they couldn't target America too. I still believe it's racist. If UAE was full of Christians, I doubt these same people would care.

4 - The issue is not just with a foreign company, but a foreign government, controlling our ports, but I doubt that today you could get away with any foreign company controlling them either. Doesn't seem to wise. Was it wise to let a British company run them. Perhaps not so smart either, but that was all a done deal before 2001, when the terrorist attacks "changed everything".

What you may not quite get as a Brit is the extent to which George Bush has used the "Middle East=terrorists" angle every which way from Sunday to get us into an unnecessary war, to get re-elected, and to excuse every repressive or excessive abuse of powers imaginable. To have him now refuse to even let their be a fair review of such a deal is outrageous.

Or, as I first thought, after spending two hours going through three security checks in the name of security and safety, it is hard to believe that we would allow a foreign government, and from a country that was pretty involved in the Sept. 11th attacks as well, to control our ports. That is not racism. I wouldn't want the British government controlling our ports, nor the Canadian government. A lot of people feel that way, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference that we didn't happen to be aware that a British company was controlling them before. In my incredibly humble opinion.

5 - @4 I don't really agree. If the logic was that other governments (governments which are allies) cannot be trusted, then really we shouldn't be taking part in this war with you. Who's to say we might not be planning something?

I think September 11th did change everything for Americans, but to be honest, American just passed through puberty and joined the rest of the world and became an adult nation. I grew up with terrorism as did every other Brit, there are still things I see today around me that make me realise America still has no idea how to deal with terrorists or the terrorist threat.

How many school kids do you know have had their school bag blown up by the Army bomb disposal guys cos they left it in McDonalds one lunchtime?

How many school kids do you know have been evaucated form their school because of an anonymous phone calls? How many presentations have people here done where they have to evacuate half way through because of bomb threats? These things are not made up, but they are things I and pretty much every other Brit I know has grown up with. So the idea that we in someway don't understand terrorism is kind of nuts. In my incredibly humble opinion.

Americans still control the ports, just the company managing them is not American.

6 - Carl - I am sorry, but you'll have to try harder than that. I have been evacuated from my own school because of bomb threats. I have had the bomb squad come to my school when I was a kid. No, they didn't blow up the bookbag, but they scared the hell out of us. I went through the cold war, and also sat in a dark auditorium with my head between my legs because that was supposed to protect us from a nuclear bomb, but we had a pretty darn good reason to worry about bombs. The U.S. may not have had to deal with terrorism as long as the British, but we have had plenty of threats facing us, and some which haven't faced others as fully. We have also had the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks. Should we be this paranoid? Probably not, but if we are going to have to live with paranoia, I think we should be consistent.

Sorry to get my back up, but I do get a bit tired of Europeans acting patronizing about how we just aren't used to the threat of terrorism. Any chance you guys are just a bit too complacent?

7 - Complacent, you serious? I'd give you that many of us come across as smug, but I don't believe we are complacent. Hhhmm, no trash cans on the underground cos they are great hiding spots for bombs. We also had the nuclear bomb threats growing up so can associate with that too.

I went skiing the other day, everywhere there were boot bags just lying around, would I see that in the UK? Nope, cos the whole place would be emptied out and the bags blown up.

I don't mean to put your back up, I just don't agree with the reasoning being put forward by people for trying to stop this outside company managing the port. If people just said, they're foreign so that shouldn't be allowed then fair enough, we should stop world trade, limit foreign ownership etc. etc. Now there are actually a lot of people that believe that should be done.

8 - I'm with Ben on this. (And I, too, had my high school shut down for bomb threats multiple times. My elementary school was actually bombed. The 70s were interesting times.)

It's well known that Boston has been a veritiable hot-bed of IRA sympathy and support. Take yourself back 20+ years and ask yourself: if the Prime Minister had approved a deal in which a company owned by a combination of the Boston city government and private Boston-based interests too over operations at Heathrow and other airports, do you not think that would have caused a bit of a stir? If it turned out that the company in question had a history of connections to the PM's family, do you not think that the loyal opposition would have stood up and demanded an inquiry? Would that have been racist?

What this comes down to is yet another case where a significant portion of the public see's the administration's policies as being geared toward fighting the wrong enemy... toward choosing our "friends" and setting foreign policy to suit the interests of oil, commerce and anti-democratic governments in democracy's clothing... and toward imposing feel-good security measures that reduce the freedom of ordinary Americans while ignoring most of the real pressing security needs pointed out repeatedly by experts.

And @1: Thanks for mentioning thatf Rush approves of this. That's another reason for us all to be opposed. And imagine. Just imagine.... What would Rush's rhetoric be if a Democratic administration were doing this? He and his friend Coulter would be screaming "treason" from the rooftops. Guaranteed.

9 - Firstly, I would like to say I am happy to be convinced to get to a position where I disagree with G.W. as that is a much more natural position for me, as it makes me very uncomfortable to be thinking he's right.

Secondly, I admit I am/was very unaware of these terrorist attacks you had growing up, as no one I work with, am friends with has ever mentioned them, and I don't ever remember reading about them.

Thirdly, where does it stop? Canada has a huge unprotected border with the US, should the Canadian ports be ran by Americans? I am reluctant to say this next bit as putting it in writing almost begs the men in black to come visit me, but the sad thing is that there are so many other much easier targets than ports. I can rent a plane in a foreign country, put my nuclear bomb on it, fly it into newark and have it blown up before the plane lands, at no point did any American get to check it. Israel probably has the strongest security systems and policies in the world, are they safe? No. So the pessimist, hhm maybe the realist in me, says that you can never protect yourself fully, unless you close up your borders, stop all travel, accept no imports etc. etc. What about products that are made abroad, how do we know that they aren't in someway being altered for a future need, all these PCs made in China, how do we know there isn't a little back door in everyone of them?

Fourthly, I still don't respect George Bush, that helps me sleep at night

10 - Back in the 70s, we mostly didn't call them terrorist attacks. It was "radical violence" back then. We had a combination of small radical groups (anti-war, racially motivated, and Puerto Rican nationalist, and maybe some others) using tactics that we would call "terrorist" today. I'm sure you could have heard of some of it, but because it was all small factions and very sporadic incidents, it would not have had the same publicity in the UK as IRA stuff had over here. We also had a lot of wannabes and copycats, who were probably responsible for most of the school threats and attacks.

Port security is about more than just interdicting nukes when they arrive. A nuke that was set off before the ship docks is no different than your airplane example -- you're not necessarily correct about "at no point did any American get to check it". Inspections are being done by DHS at the port/airport of departure in some cases, and should be done in more cases. I don't know where it stops, but that's no excuse for ignoring the obvious fact that in-port cargo inspection is a key factor in preventing importation of drugs, WMD materials, illegal immigrants and terrorists -- and that the UAE governemnt can not be assumed to share our goals.

11 - Deals like this should not be done in secret and should be subject to normal government review processes. The president claims not to have known about it, yet the project was being done faster than normal. I'd like to know why.

Deals like this should include accountability. This one did not require the UAE company to keep its records on US soil (so they'd be accessible in US courts). Why should any entity managing our ports be able to hide its records?

If the general facts of the port deal won't stand the light of day, perhaps it's not a good deal.

12 - My concern would not be somone tageting a port, but what one could bring into the contry THROUGH a port.

I aslo find it funny that Bush says he had nothing to do with this deal, but he plans to veto any legislation the tries to stop it.