UAE Port Deal

[Benman]

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

[Benman]

[ 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.

[Nepa]

[ 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!

[Dynasty]

Video of Bush Statement

[wacki]

[ 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

[Stu Pidasso]

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

[Stu Pidasso]

[ 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

[ 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.

[ 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.

[ligastar]

[ 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.