UAE Port Deal

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Republicans are against this deal, however I am not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you approve of the UAE supporting the Taliban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello non sequitir. But Ill humor you. First off, define support? Recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (regardless of what you or I think of the Taliban), is much less egregious then outright support of terrorism. Which one was it? Cite your sources please and then tell me what this has to do with this port deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


By the way, UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.

And what was that figure someone cited? ~40% of the citizens in the UAE support OSAMA BIN LADEN?

I recently read that the Treasury Dept. part of that committee has virtually never met a foreign investment deal (outside--->U.S.) that they didn't like and approve. But does it really even matter how many committees "investigate" this deal? Isn't it still obvious that the chances of terrorist penetration or compromise of this privately held company from UAE, are far greater than the chances of the same with a British or US company? Why have so much trust in officialdom--why not just think for ourselves for a moment?

There is NO WAY a privately held company from the UAE...or from Pakistan...or from Saudi Arabia (all of which happen to be good U.S. "allies" in the war on terror, by the way...can possibly be considered as unlikely to be compromised or penetrated by terrorists as British or our own. No way in hell, in fact. A company from a country that has what, 40% popular support for bin Laden? Isn't that company more likely to be penetrated or compromised by terrorists? I mean really...this whole thing just seems surreal to me, and even beyond surreal. I don't care if Bush and Rummy and even Ronald Reagan's ghost were all to rubber-stamp the deal and say it's swell..it just isn't. Why this isn't more obvious to everyone is just beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had your way, would any company from the UAE be allowed to operate in any way in the United States? Say, a clothing line or a car company.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]

If you had your way, would any company from the UAE be allowed to operate in any way in the United States? Say, a clothing line or a car company.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U dubya A-rads can make all of the cloths that they want but selling them a port is a little different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Republicans are against this deal, however I am not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you approve of the UAE supporting the Taliban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello non sequitir. But Ill humor you. First off, define support? Recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (regardless of what you or I think of the Taliban), is much less egregious then outright support of terrorism. Which one was it? Cite your sources please and then tell me what this has to do with this port deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


By the way, UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.

And what was that figure someone cited? ~40% of the citizens in the UAE support OSAMA BIN LADEN?

I recently read that the Treasury Dept. part of that committee has virtually never met a foreign investment deal (outside--->U.S.) that they didn't like and approve. But does it really even matter how many committees "investigate" this deal? Isn't it still obvious that the chances of terrorist penetration or compromise of this privately held company from UAE, are far greater than the chances of the same with a British or US company? Why have so much trust in officialdom--why not just think for ourselves for a moment?

There is NO WAY a privately held company from the UAE...or from Pakistan...or from Saudi Arabia (all of which happen to be good U.S. "allies" in the war on terror, by the way...can possibly be considered as unlikely to be compromised or penetrated by terrorists as British or our own. No way in hell, in fact. A company from a country that has what, 40% popular support for bin Laden? Isn't that company more likely to be penetrated or compromised by terrorists? I mean really...this whole thing just seems surreal to me, and even beyond surreal. I don't care if Bush and Rummy and even Ronald Reagan's ghost were all to rubber-stamp the deal and say it's swell..it just isn't. Why this isn't more obvious to everyone is just beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had your way, would any company from the UAE be allowed to operate in any way in the United States? Say, a clothing line or a car company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course; why not? But not outsourcing military, security, or anything that might be a critical weak point we may have. The ports are a weak point already as has long been noted.

I also don't see why anyone thinks this has anything to do with xenophobia, Islamophobia, or anti-Arab bigotry. The UAE has widespread popular support for Osama bin-Laden, for crying out loud; the Pakistani/Khan smuggled nukes went through there; it's something of a terrorist hub. If the Swedish citizenry had widespread popular support for OBL the same would apply to them too. Why the heck isn't this obvious?

We shouldn't be taking chances with our potential achilles heel (ports) to save a few bucks. And Bush saying that stuff about "sending a message" is just amazing--as if THAT weighs even a millionth of what preventing nukes going off in 6 major seaboard cities weighs.

We just don't need to take chances like this. My God this whole thing is just like watching the Twilight Zone.

[New001]

MMMMMM,

This is an excerpt taken from Vulturesrow's post earlier in the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part about that is so alarming? Americans still provide the security, all this company does is load and unload cargo. On top of that, all employees will be American citizens or "legal permanent residents." Am I missing something?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm, How about this? Lets sell all of the Schools to Bin Laden! I'll say it again Great plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in America are trying to do this. Just replace the name Bin Laden with Pat Robertson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh give me a break.

Liberals say the darnest things.

BTW for the first time I can remmeber I agree with Chuck Schumer. I keep feeling dirty

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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 ]

i expected to hear this to but haven't really noticed much. Usual suspects such as Hannity, and conservative radio has gone against Bush, same way they did with immigration. I can't account for Limbaugh, I don't listen to tools on either side of the isle.

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,

This is an excerpt taken from Vulturesrow's post earlier in the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part about that is so alarming? Americans still provide the security, all this company does is load and unload cargo. On top of that, all employees will be American citizens or "legal permanent residents." Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]


The company does significantly more than merely load and unload cargo.

(excerpt)"It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading."(end excerpt)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/op...mp;oref=slogin

[New001]

Okay, but customs officers (not employed by this company) are still inspecting the cargo. And, more cargo absolutely should be inspected than is now, but that's not the responsibility of this company whether it's foreign or domestic. No matter who runs these ports, it should happen.

But, you still haven't convinced me that this (having the ports run by a foreign company) is a problem. Let's run through two scenarios.

o Someone smuggles a bomb onto a cargo ship that makes it into Philadelphia. That cargo is inspected by US customs officials and discovered. Proper procedure goes from there for getting rid of it, disarming it, or otherwise blunting its effects.

o The same bomb is smuggled into Philadelphia, only the customs officials do not inspect it. It continues on its way and is detonated inside the country, in Philadelphia or somewhere else.

Obviously we want the former over the latter. How does this company make the latter more likely than the former?

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, but customs officers (not employed by this company) are still inspecting the cargo. And, more cargo absolutely should be inspected than is now, but that's not the responsibility of this company whether it's foreign or domestic. No matter who runs these ports, it should happen.

But, you still haven't convinced me that this (having the ports run by a foreign company) is a problem. Let's run through two scenarios.

o Someone smuggles a bomb onto a cargo ship that makes it into Philadelphia. That cargo is inspected by US customs officials and discovered. Proper procedure goes from there for getting rid of it, disarming it, or otherwise blunting its effects.

o The same bomb is smuggled into Philadelphia, only the customs officials do not inspect it. It continues on its way and is detonated inside the country, in Philadelphia or somewhere else.

Obviously we want the former over the latter. How does this company make the latter more likely than the former?

[/ QUOTE ]



Because, as the excerpt stated: "And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading."

OK, now just hypothetically speaking: if YOU were going to smuggle a bomb into some place, wouldn't it also be nice for you to have the authority to hire and assign the security officers who are going to watch it--and to be in charge of "guarding" it, and to be able to oversee its unloading?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this company make the latter more likely than the former?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an easy one. They are from the Middle East, remember?