UAE Port Deal
 

I expect the usual Bush apologists to start spinning away.
link

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
I expect the usual Bush apologists to start spinning away.
link

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't hear it on here because the Bush lovers won't stand up and say that this is wrong. They mostly will chose not to say anything.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expect the usual Bush apologists to start spinning away.
link

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't hear it on here because the Bush lovers won't stand up and say that this is wrong. They mostly will chose not to say anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many Bush lovers do we actually have here anyway?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

Watching the news of this deal unfold as I write this.....

I don't know whether to chalk this up to absolute incompetency and horrible judgment, or something more diabolical.

Whatever it is, it is truly disturbing.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

I read the Atlantic article about Pakistan's nuclear program right before this news broke. Shipping through Dubai seemed standard. Scary.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read the Atlantic article about Pakistan's nuclear program right before this news broke. Shipping through Dubai seemed standard. Scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you read both parts. I'd post links but often the Atlantic articles require a subscription.

Not sure a terrorist would need to offload the container into a port though. You can do "a bit" of damage just bringing a ship with a container nuke near the dock that is also near a populated area.

~ Rick

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understand something. I'm not saying that this deal absolutely should never happen. That's not what the members of Congress who are speaking out are saying. What we are saying is that this deal may have been allowed to go through without due diligence with regard to potential security problems, and financial transparency.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

no, just one part. I don't subscribe but happened to buy the mag. Sort of dumb I don't subscribe because the mag is excellent

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

We wouldn't let a non-Arab country like Iran do this do you think?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

From Drudge Report:

Bush has reportedly said he will veto any bill that attempts to block the deal.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
no, just one part. I don't subscribe but happened to buy the mag. Sort of dumb I don't subscribe because the mag is excellent

[/ QUOTE ]

The first part was in the November 20005 issue and the second part was in the Jan/Feb issue. I just checked the links with an old browser where cookies aren't enabled and sadly you need to be a subscriber to view the articles (some articles don't require this).

Agree the mag is excellent and I've been subscribing for about 22 years. Don't know of a better one that covers the big national security issues along with cultural issues (good example of fascinating article on cultural matters is current issue (March 2006), article titled "How Do I Love Thee? regarding online matchmaking).

~ Rick

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

[/ QUOTE ]

2.

2/2,500,000 = 0.00008%.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't let a non-Arab country like Iran do this do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Iran is a hostile nation that is currently under sanctions, is threatening to develop nuclear weapons, and consistently spews rhetoric threatening us and our allies. The UAE is an ally, and no one has produced ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.


According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.


After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

[/ QUOTE ]

2.

2/2,500,000 = 0.00008%.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can trust these guys with port security?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

[/ QUOTE ]

2.

2/2,500,000 = 0.00008%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am begging you Bobman. For your own sanity. Please do some research on the United Arab Emirates. This is about much more than 2 terrorists. You blindly trust this president, even though he has continuously refused to acknowledge the existence of Congress. Please research this. You may learn something.

BTW, if there truly is nothing to be concerned about, and the UAE truly is an unwavering ally in the war on terror, they will not be offended by the deal being held up for a bit.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report:

Bush has reportedly said he will veto any bill that attempts to block the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a bluff he never vetoed anything in his life!

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

[/ QUOTE ]

2.

2/2,500,000 = 0.00008%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am begging you Bobman. For your own sanity. Please do some research on the United Arab Emirates. This is about much more than 2 terrorists. You blindly trust this president, even though he has continuously refused to acknowledge the existence of Congress. Please research this. You may learn something.

BTW, if there truly is nothing to be concerned about, and the UAE truly is an unwavering ally in the war on terror, they will not be offended by the deal being held up for a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the sake of disclosure, I'm clearly no fan of President Bush. But let's pretend I'm a blank slate, and someone educate me as to why this is especially disastrous. I understand why the US should exercise caution, particularly in regards to security in the post 9/11 era; but the rhetoric I'm hearing from both sides doesn't seem to be demanding prudence. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

So I do not blindly trust this President; but someone make the case for me as to why I should be especially alarmed.

FWIW, if we were to treat this thread like a poker hand, I prefer bobman's line to others.

To this challenge: "BTW, if there truly is nothing to be concerned about, and the UAE truly is an unwavering ally in the war on terror, they will not be offended by the deal being held up for a bit" -- I would answer that if we suspect UAE is not to be trusted, we need a redefinition of the word 'ally' and a rexamination of American foreign policy and international free enterprise.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

What's the over/under on how long it takes to surface that Haliburton is somehow involved in the deal?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's a greater proportion of persons with known links to 911 in UAE than there was in Iraq, right? If we can go to war over no link, surely we can kill a port deal with a country with some links.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's the over/under on how long it takes to surface that Haliburton is somehow involved in the deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if Halliburton is involved but this is a very very bad deal. I wouldn't mind it as much if it wasn't a government run company.

This looks like a Trojan Horse too me. Does anyone else feel this way?

How can these guys say that they are from national security and do a deal like this. I want actions not words!

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you forgetting about 9-11? How many hijackers were from the UAE?

[/ QUOTE ]

2.

2/2,500,000 = 0.00008%.

[/ QUOTE ]


bobman,

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

that is all,

wacki

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

Hi Nepa,

Port security is handled by the Coast Guard. So even if this deal goes through we won't be trusting the UAE to handle port security.

The UAE does provide us with a base for our U2 spy planes and other important military assets.

Although I am not thrilled its the UAE, at least its not France or Germany.

Stu

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there's a greater proportion of persons with known links to 911 in UAE than there was in Iraq, right? If we can go to war over no link, surely we can kill a port deal with a country with some links.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people in Germany and other EU countries were also involved in 911 are you suggesting we cut off all deals we have with them as well?

Stu

I Agree With Canis582
 

[ QUOTE ]
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Finally, something I agree with canis582 on.

The port deal is astounding and irresponsible, and a vivid example of selling out our security in the name of "good relations" or "political correctness."

Bush is a bit too much of a politician and something of a softie, let's face it everyone. He let bin-Laden and a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders and goons escape from Tora Bora when we had them surrounded--he did this by outsourcing the other end of the military trap to Afghani warlords. Naturally, over those three days of "negotiations" when al-Qaeda was trapped in the Tora Bora valley, the chickens flew the coop over the mountains on the Pakistani border (the sensible thing of course would have been to bomb Tora Bora until it was certain that not one al-Qaeda or Taliban in that entire cave area was left alive).

After 911, Bush made a big deal about how Islam is a "religion of peace." Well, sadly, wishing doesn't make it so. And saying nice things doesn't do much to make moderate Muslims more moderate, or radical Muslims any less radical.

Bush is looking for too much cooperation in the war on terror, which is really the war against offensively-oriented radical Islam. Granted, we do need some cooperation, but we don't need UAE managing our port security.

Now Bush thinks a Middle Eastern company should be treated the same as a British company when it comes to our vital security. Besides canis582's specific points above--which are very important--the fact that UAE is both Arab and Muslim means that it is inherently more of a potential security threat to the USA than is Great Britain, with whom we share a close common heritage and Western world view.

Hillary Clinton actually has the right idea here: introduce a bill prohibiting the outsourcing of our port operations to ANY foreign company. It just isn't necessary, and it could potentially lead to the "American Hiroshima" of multiple cities that bin-Laden has been planning for years.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't let a non-Arab country like Iran do this do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Iran is a hostile nation that is currently under sanctions, is threatening to develop nuclear weapons, and consistently spews rhetoric threatening us and our allies. The UAE is an ally, and no one has produced ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is evidence, in that UAE has a lot of terrorist activity going on and apparently was a focal point of the Pakistani/Khan nuke transfer.

But that is also besides the point. We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.

I hope Congress and the governors fight Bush tooth and nail on this, and if he vetos, I hope they get the supermajority or whatever it takes to override his veto. For all our sakes'.

Bush is a lot cleverer than most think, but he is also just too trusting. And in this kind of "war" we can't afford to be trusting AT ALL when it comes to our most vital security--especially with a Muslim Arab country which, as I've read lately, is something of a "hub" for terrorist activity.

This is quite possibly the single worst idea of Bush's entire presidency. The good relations--or slight loss of good relations if we back out of the deal--means absolutely jacksh!t compared to the possible spectre of nukes going off in our major Eastern seaboard ports. And just because we are good buddies with the UAE government (right now anyway), doesn't mean that the company in question can't be infiltrated by cunning terrorists.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.


According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.


After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough red flags for this American.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi MMMMMM,

Can you tell us exactly what is being outsourced. Apparently security of those ports has and will continue to remain the responsibility of the USCG. How much of an impact does this company's operation have on actual port security?

Stu

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi MMMMMM,

Can you tell us exactly what is being outsourced. Apparently security of those ports has and will continue to remain the responsibility of the USCG. How much of an impact does this company's operation have on actual port security?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The contract is for $6.5 billion...they are doing more than cleaning the toilets.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi MMMMMM,

Can you tell us exactly what is being outsourced. Apparently security of those ports has and will continue to remain the responsibility of the USCG. How much of an impact does this company's operation have on actual port security?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The contract is for $6.5 billion...they are doing more than cleaning the toilets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then since you oppose this deal, surely you can tell us what they'll be doing?

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi MMMMMM,

Can you tell us exactly what is being outsourced. Apparently security of those ports has and will continue to remain the responsibility of the USCG. How much of an impact does this company's operation have on actual port security?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The contract is for $6.5 billion...they are doing more than cleaning the toilets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then since you oppose this deal, surely you can tell us what they'll be doing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. But I heard U.A.E. And I heard U.S. ports. And I heard $6.5B and I went with my gut.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK guys, there are 2.5 million people in the UAE. Despite being overwhelmingly Arab, they are actually not all terrorists. It would be both disgusting and terribly damaging to our current image war in the Middle East to disrupt this deal solely because the buyers are Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a Government owned company. Even if you assume that they are with us and fighting the terrorist how can you be sure that the political climate doesn't change in the UAE to be for the terrorist AGAIN. They have been known to harbor terrorist.

I believe that we ruined our image with Arabs when we invaded IRAQ.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that we ruined our image with Arabs when we invaded IRAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree that this was a bad decision by our president. No WMD and all. No connection to 9/11 and all.

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that we ruined our image with Arabs when we invaded IRAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree that this was a bad decision by our president. No WMD and all. No connection to 9/11 and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want this to be hijacked by that statement but I just wanted to point out how bad the "We'll look bad with the Arabs" Talking point is.

Re: I Agree With Canis582
 

First – this is a baaad idea - period.

I think the reason for Bush’s support may be more of a nod to the Brits since it’s their company who is doing the selling than to the UAE.

Still bad idea – bad bad bad bad

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

Interesting article:
http://voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa27.cfm

Re: UAE Port Deal
 

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this either way, and if it was a Bush decision then there's bound to ahve been plenty of incompetence and wishful thinking involved, but some points:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.




[/ QUOTE ]

Enough red flags for this American.

[/ QUOTE ]

To all extents and purposes the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan - and its rivals to legitimacy were not much better in terms of fundamentalism, and supported by well-known US allies such as Iran. Others may not have chosen to officially recongise the Taliban government but in practice the US for example was perfectly happy to deal with it pre-9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.


According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is one of the key shipping and banking centres of the Middle East. No doubt money went through the British and US banking systems too.

[ QUOTE ]
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]


The banking system or the government? If the latter, I can see that this could be a worry.

For whoever said they'd be less worried if it were a privately opwned company, I think the opposite is true. The UAE government is a Western ally and petrified of al-Qa'ida and the like, to whom it is anathema as a feudal, insufficiently Islamic regime. A private company would be more likely to be run by people with al-Qa'ida sympathies.