We should unite with libs and take to the streets on Port issue!

[Fmr jarhead]

Look, I know we can get hit with a WMD by Arab terrorists without selling our ports to a foreign government, but why make it easier? That's like saying that we can still be robbed in the middle of the night even if we don't leave all our doors and windows open with a sign up that says "Please rob me," so why bother closing the doors and not putting up the sign. Now, I don't have too much of a problem with vital areas being owned by foreign companies, even Arab companies, because companies will always look our for their best interests, which means that they won't hurt the U.S. through their holdings, as it would cause a decrease in profits and stock prices.

Selling our vital areas to a foreign government, on the other hand, I am dead set against, even if the government is a friendly one. The UAE, despite their public denouncing of the 9/11 attacks, is hostile to the U.S. in much the same was as Saudi Arabia. They basically put on a happy face while sneaking around to stab us in the back. I mean, they can say that they condemn 9/11 all they want, but when their citizens prance around calling for our blood while Al-Jazeera is the only news station sends a different message. If this deal goes down, it will bring nothing but trouble.

You are quite incorrect in your ASSumption that the UAE is HOSTILE toward the US. WE continue to transport military troops and equipment through Abu Dabi and Dubai, as well as maintain one of our forward command centers there....there is little, if any hostile intent of the majority of UAE citizens since we became the 3rd country to recognize them as a soveriegn collective of states in the early 70's.

It appears as though you have drunk the Koolaid, and are ready to fall in to lockstep with the looney bats on this one....

Ask yourself if this is really about business or your fear of Muslims.....

 

[archangel]

ARCH---you do not even know what the deal entails!

The Center for security policy states that 2% or some 20million of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims are in fact following the Wahhabism-State sponsored extremists! Financied by Saudi Arabia et al...and this is just one of many extremist groups!

Also please visit www.masada2000.org/islam.html it will give you a little history of this movement!

 

[dilloduck]

The Center for security policy states that 2% or some 20million of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims are in fact following the Wahhabism-State sponsored extremists! Financied by Saudi Arabia et al...and this is just one of many extremist groups!

Also please visit www.masada2000.org/islam.html it will give you a little history of this movement!

No one is arguing that there is danger. Your fear of Muslims may be warranted but your over-reaction may be just as dangerous. Who do you think could pick out a terrorist in a crowd of Muslims faster? An American or an Arab? Who do you think has a better data base on Arabs?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Isn't it amazing how liberals are suddenly ALL CONCERNED about terrorists and the war on terror? They cried and sobbed about Abu Garib and Gitmo but hardly ever mentioned 9-11 or the cutting off of innocent heads by the real terrorists. Bush rounds up terrorist after terrorist and hardly a peep in the liberal papers. Target young Muslim men boarding an airplane - heavens no! Seems like only yesterday they were saying we should treat ALL Muslims with dignity and compasion. Isn't it amazing how they can turn on a dime? One thing I've learned about liberals is they will use any means to obtains their ends.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
26 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them — even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: "They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction."

Treasury Secretary John Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

 

[archangel]

No one is arguing that there is danger. Your fear of Muslims may be warranted but your over-reaction may be just as dangerous. Who do you think could pick out a terrorist in a crowd of Muslims faster? An American or an Arab? Who do you think has a better data base on Arabs?

I despise their theocracy...and your comment is lame...do you really believe they would assist in turning over their brothers? They want the port for one reason only a hot LZ...read the history link I gave you...get your head outta Rush the morons butt!

 

[dilloduck]

Isn't it amazing how liberals are suddenly ALL CONCERNED about terrorists and the war on terror? They cried and sobbed about Abu Garib and Gitmo but hardly ever mentioned 9-11 or the cutting off of innocent heads by the real terrorists. Bush rounds up terrorist after terrorist and hardly a peep in the liberal papers. Target young Muslim men boarding an airplane - heavens no! Seems like only yesterday they were saying we should treat ALL Muslims with dignity and compasion. Isn't it amazing how they can turn on a dime? One thing I've learned about liberals is they will use any means to obtains their ends.

It certainly has created a PR nightmare which is typical of this adminstations' handling of the press but when you can't do anything right by them I can understand the "what the hell" attitude.
The sheer ignorant panic and irrational fear that has gripped Americans actually shocks me. We have liberals DELIGHTED that they can look tough on National Security and Republicans furious that they have somehow been sold down the river when they HAVE NO CLUE as to the details of this transaction.
Kudos to the libs who have been able to create such an uproar and shame of the conservatives who won't even take the time to rationally think this one through.
Ignorance and politics are ruling the day.

 

[dilloduck]

I despise their theocracy...and your comment is lame...do you really believe they would assist in turning over their brothers? They want the port for one reason only a hot LZ...read the history link I gave you...get your head outta Rush the morons butt!

They already ARE turning in thier own----the UAE ITSELF is constantly under the threat of terrorists hitting THEM. I get it, Arch. You don't have to convince me that islamo-terrorism is real. Answer my questions if you have pissed in your pants out of paranoid fear already. This isn't the time to flip out. It's time for cool heads to prevail and to act on FACTS. Most of which you DON"T EVEN KNOW !

PLEASE TELL ME
How will this transaction make the US ports more vulnerable than they are now?
What other company would be safer?

 

[trobinett]

Great thread, I`ve learned more reading your posts, and linked articles, than I ever knew reading, or watching the new`s.

My take?

Follow through on the sale, can`t see how it hurt`s, look`s like a "win, win" situation to me.

Plus, and also, wouldn`t surprise me if they do a better job of it. :cof:

 

[archangel]

They already ARE turning in thier own----the UAE ITSELF is constantly under the threat of terrorists hitting THEM. I get it, Arch. You don't have to convince me that islamo-terrorism is real. Answer my questions if you have pissed in toy pants out of paranoid fear already. This isn't the time to flip out. It's time for cool heads to prevail and to act on FACTS. Most of which you DON"T EVEN KNOW !

PLEASE TELL ME
How will this transaction make the US ports more vulnerable than they are now?
What other company would be safer?

First and foremost I gave you the facts via links...no paranoid fear here...just simple logic and history dictating my opinion...and for the record I am very familiar with ports of entry...after all it was my past career...it is difficult enough to enforce import and export laws and security...this will... in my humble opinion magnify the risk factor...and I believe the ports should be run by US companies...period! Now you explain to me why a ME company is safer...since you seem to have some inside info the rest of us are lacking?


PS: and the 'Rush"quotes are dead giveaway...try thinking on your own vs ad libbing a dumb Rush quote...'cool head...don't flip out'

 

[dilloduck]

First and foremost I gave you the facts via links...no paranoid fear here...just simple logic and history dictating my opinion...and for the record I am very familiar with ports of entry...after all it was my past career...it is difficult enough to enforce import and export laws and security...this will... in my humble opinion magnify the risk factor...and I believe the ports should be run by US companies...period! Now you explain to me why a ME company is safer...since you seem to have some inside info the rest of us are lacking?

Try a link that's not as biased as an Israeli/Jewish one.

You gave me NO facts pertaining to this company. You gave me NO facts pertaining to the detail of this new arrangement. I made no claim that this company is any safer than any other. If this company is so dangerous--prove it to me! If you want to shit can this deal which American country is safer? How might slapping the UAE in the face affect the GREAT realtionship we have with them NOW?

 

[archangel]

Try a link that's not as biased as an Israeli/Jewish one.

You gave me NO facts pertaining to this company. You gave me NO facts pertaining to the detail of this new arrangement. I made no claim that this company is any safer than any other. If this company is so dangerous--prove it to me! If you want to shit can this deal which American country is safer? How might slapping the UAE in the face affect the GREAT realtionship we have with them NOW?

Once again don't shoot the messenger because you are also biased...this link provided facts and history regardless of whether or not you like Israel...and you prove to me how they are just as or safer..and forget the biased Rush quotes for once...explain away...minus your generalities!

ps: UAE is a Islam nation...have donated to radical groups in the past...these ports would be under the control of a state government not a private corporation...and if this is not enough just consider the fact that Michael Jackson has been embraced by the UAE and is building a home there and is converting to Islam( just threw this in for a laugh!)

 

[dilloduck]

Once again don't shoot the messenger because you are also biased...this link provided facts and history regardless of whether or not you like Israel...and you prove to me how they are just as or safer..and forget the biased Rush quotes for once...explain away...minus your generalities!

Reality---- certian port operations are up for sale. People have been SCREAMING about how unsafe they are NOW. If you don't like the deal, then we either continue with the port operation running AS IS or we get another company to run the show. Show me a safer company and until you do we will still have high risk ports. Criticizing a plan THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT is ignorant. Espescially when you have no alternate plan that I can look at.

Air Force bases in Persian Gulf muslim countries
Ahmed Al Jaber AB KW
Ali Al Salem AB KW
Al Dhafra AB UAE
Dhahran AB SA
Doha IAP QA
Eskan Village SA
Fujairah IAP UAE
Jeddah AB SA
Khamis Mushayt AB SA
Khobar Towers SA
King Khalid Military City SA
Kuwait IAP KW
Masirah OM
Al Musnana AB OM
Muharraq BH
Prince Sultan AB SA
Riyadh AB SA
Seeb AB OM
Shaheed Mwaffaq AB JO
Shaikh Isa AB BH
Thumrait AB OM
Tabuk AB SA
Taif AB SA
Al Udeid AB QA

You think we night need these to fight terror?

 

[archangel]

Reality---- certian port operations are up for sale. People have been SCREAMING about how unsafe they are NOW. If you don't like the deal, then we either continue with the port operation running AS IS or we get another company to run the show. Show me a safer company and until you do we will still have high risk ports. Criticizing a plan THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT is ignorant. Espescially when you have no alternate plan that I can look at.

I for one have seen no plan...just the administration saying what they are going to do!I say drop this ball before we as a nation become totally embarrassed...Find a US company that is qualified...end of story!

 

[dilloduck]

I for one have seen no plan...just the administration saying what they are going to do!I say drop this ball before we as a nation become totally embarrassed...Find a US company that is qualified...end of story!

Great plan. Must be a liberal one. Sounds so familiar. And in the mean time?
Whatever shall we do? Some Mexican who has been paid by a Muslim is gonna stick a bomb up your ass while you looking out the window for the UAE to attack. :happy2:

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I for one have seen no plan...just the administration saying what they are going to do!I say drop this ball before we as a nation become totally embarrassed...Find a US company that is qualified...end of story!

If it were a good business proposition, I am quite certain a large business group (that could meet federal guidelines, like the UAE company has) would have already put in a proposal.

 

[Nienna]

Ann Coulter weighs in...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12645&o=ANN001

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ann Coulter weighs in...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12645&o=ANN001

Coulter makes some good points. I agree that Bush is mishandling this issue and also that we should not just allow Muslims or any foreigners willy-nilly buy into our ports unless they're thoroughly checked out. Let's not be stupid. "Trust but verify."

This is an article by Mansoor Ijaz, a U.S. terrorism expert, and he has some interesting ideas and solutions to this port issue:

Un-American
A disappointing and damaging response to the Dubai deal.

Islamophobia, not national security, is at the heart of the raging controversy on Capitol Hill over a United Arab Emirates-based company, Dubai Ports World, assuming ownership and management responsibilities at six major seaports in the United States. U.S. lawmakers might bristle at the thought of letting the UAE own and operate U.S. ports. After all, it was a citizen of the UAE, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed. But their fiery rhetoric and threats of congressional action mask an increasingly patronizing racism fueled by illogical paranoia rooted in past events. Let's deal with what the UAE is now.

Simply put, the reaction to the Dubai deal is un-American.

President Bush has therefore rightly threatened to veto any attempts to block the Dubai deal, although Congress, eager to insure the burden of responsibility falls squarely on his shoulders if another terrorist attack takes place on American soil, is sure to force him to pull out the presidential ink pen next week.

Congressional moves to reverse the administration's support for an Arab company to run American ports exposes dangerous prejudices in America's dealings with important Muslim countries at the time when they are needed most as front-line allies to fight terrorism. In Dubai's case, this reality is reflected by deep suspicions that the sheikdom's cordial relations with leading state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, might somehow become the basis for DP World's port operations allowing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to be smuggled into the U.S. in ship containers from unregulated ports.

Dubai, known for innovative investing in antiterrorist technology, should be encouraged to fund and deploy a revolutionary array of security initiatives, such as neutron pulse scanners and smart container-tracking chips that can track and detect illicit materials in cargo containers. U.S. technology is already being developed in prototype form to create CAT-scan-like reports identifying nuclear and chemical materials inside containers in less than two minutes, without opening them or materially affecting port management economics. Rather than penalize Dubai for suspicions no one can prove, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should find a common investment and implementation basis with DP World for moving such technology development forward at a more rapid pace.

Simple corporate restructuring of the deal could also address concerns over how foreign-government-owned businesses are allowed to exert control in operating U.S. ports. DP World's operations could be conducted under a U.S.-limited liability company framework with two classes of shares — voting and non-voting. DP World would own 100 percent of the non-voting shares, which in turn would accrue 99 percent of the deal's economic benefits. The voting-rights shares would be 100 percent owned by U.S. citizens with one percent of the economic benefits. The voting shares would have sole authority to set port operations policies, and importantly, to change any policy promulgated by DP World deemed a threat to national security.

Under such a proposal, the U.S. shareholders could be, for example, the chief-executive officeholders of the port authorities that DP World proposes to manage, along with a few presidential appointees, such as former law-enforcement officials, to provide oversight. Such arrangements already serve to channel important investment into private U.S. companies engaged in sensitive technology development that are regulated by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Port security, as opposed to a port's commercial activities that DP World would be responsible for, will remain the task of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Service.

Such changes would not be discriminatory going forward — even a British company, like the ports' present management owners, Peninsular and Oriental, would also be subjected to the new regime.

Washington's bout with Islamophobia also ignores the reality of Dubai's future direction. A metropolis already, it is rapidly becoming the prototype city-state that could serve as an important example for the future in Muslim societies bedeviled by high unemployment, low literacy rates, bad trade policies, and authoritarian political structures. It is managed and led by a cadre of young, highly educated Arab and Muslim professionals who seek to transform the world's stereotype of Islam by developing and running businesses transparently, with integrity and with an increasingly democratic and accountable corporate culture.

Whatever the UAE's policies in the pre-9/11 world (whether as home to A. Q. Khan's illicit nuclear network, one of three Taliban embassies, questionable banking practices, or as an alleged repository for Iranian-terror funds), Dubai's record under these young leaders in the post 9/11 world reflects serious and structural change in national strategy. As Jim Robbins noted Tuesday, in December 2004, Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the U.S. Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

These are not the actions of a terror-sponsoring state.

The Dubai port deal could also serve to increase the depth and breadth of people-to-people contacts between America and important Muslim countries in the Reaganesque "trust but verify" mold. It is useful in this regard to remember the example of the U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, which for decades has trained foreign armies in unstable countries to stay out of politics and improved U.S. understanding of complex societies. It seems patently hypocritical that America wants democracy in the Middle East, champions capitalism and global integration, pushes for reform, transparency, and anti-corruption practices in business, and then turns around and tells those who are practicing what America preaches, Sorry, we think you folks are a bunch of terrorists, so we don't want you on our shores and don't trust you running our ports.

It is understandable that American politicians would want to seek clarifications, safeguards, and accountability on the DP World deal in honor of all those who were mercilessly murdered on that tragic September morning. But the best way to honor their memories is to use the Dubai deal as a model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world — as we did in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan — instead of erecting barriers that reveal America's paranoia and fear about some Islamist doomsday scenario no one can predict, all the while alienating the very people we need to help raise up the Muslim world's disaffected so they are not so desperate to tear us down.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Great plan. Must be a liberal one. Sounds so familiar. And in the mean time?
Whatever shall we do? Some Mexican who has been paid by a Muslim is gonna stick a bomb up your ass while you looking out the window for the UAE to attack. :happy2:

My husband and I were just discussing this at dinner. I am more disappointed in and concerned about the President's feeble border control policies, than I am over the UAE ports deal.

 

[nbdysfu]

Great plan. Must be a liberal one. Sounds so familiar. And in the mean time?
Whatever shall we do? Some Mexican who has been paid by a Muslim is gonna stick a bomb up your ass while you looking out the window for the UAE to attack. :happy2:

:happy2: Right between his vestigial blind eyes.