U.S. /Dubai Port Deal

[Phasad1913]

"Overriding objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto efforts in Congress to block the agreement. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/...ports_security

All over the news today, reports have been saying the repubs are trying to throw a racial profiling issue in the face of democrats who oppose this deal because it is to be made to a middle eastern country. Aside from the fact that that, in and of itself is rediculous, there is also the apparent confusion by repubs ( or at the very least republican/conservative commentators) about what the REAl racial profiling issues that Americans and democrats have been fighting about for the past several years.

All I can say about the port issue is that had it been Democrats proposing to sell control over 6 critical ports in our country to a country like this, LORD KNOWS the republicans would be playing the national secutiy card left and right! I really don't see how in the world the President and his supporters can go at this deal with a strait face when the UAE and Saudi Arabia either clearly or at the very minimum potentially had ties to 911. I don't care what Bush says about they played by the rules and is an ally in the war on terror. COME ON!

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
I really don't see how in the world the President and his supporters can go at this deal with a strait face when the UAE and Saudi Arabia either clearly or at the very minimum potentially had ties to 911. I don't care what Bush says about they played by the rules and is an ally in the war on terror. COME ON!

Ignoring the rest of your rant for a quick moment, could you produce a citation for this?

Thanks!

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Ignoring the rest of your rant for a quick moment, could you produce a citation for this?

Thanks!

"2001 11 September - 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in attacks on New York and Washington are Saudi nationals."

"2003 May - Suicide bombers kill 35 people at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh hours before US Secretary of State Colin Powell flies in for planned visit"

2003 April - US says it will pull out almost all its troops from Saudi Arabia, ending a military presence dating back to the 1991 Gulf war. Both countries stress that they will remain allies. (of course they will...typical straddling of the fence by our dear "friends". This parenthetical was added by muah, Phasad)


from the following source:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/820515.stm

I know you could have easily pulled the same source had YOU done a search, but since I know the silly point you're really trying to make, here ya go. You, of course, are as free as anyone else to deduce what you want from this and the many other sources that are out there. Just like I did.

And, you can call what I said a rant all you want. This is what the message board is for. As I always say, if you don't like a topic or a particular comment, move on to one you do like. Have a good one, I'm out.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
"Overriding objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto efforts in Congress to block the agreement. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/...ports_security

All over the news today, reports have been saying the repubs are trying to throw a racial profiling issue in the face of democrats who oppose this deal because it is to be made to a middle eastern country. Aside from the fact that that, in and of itself is rediculous, there is also the apparent confusion by repubs ( or at the very least republican/conservative commentators) about what the REAl racial profiling issues that Americans and democrats have been fighting about for the past several years.

All I can say about the port issue is that had it been Democrats proposing to sell control over 6 critical ports in our country to a country like this, LORD KNOWS the republicans would be playing the national secutiy card left and right! I really don't see how in the world the President and his supporters can go at this deal with a strait face when the UAE and Saudi Arabia either clearly or at the very minimum potentially had ties to 911. I don't care what Bush says about they played by the rules and is an ally in the war on terror. COME ON!

There are many Republicans (even some of his hardcore support base) that are in opposition of this sale as well so I'm not so sure if its a clear case of "Reps vs Dems". Nevertheless, I can't believe it either - I mean really, handing over operation to a company that had (and maybe still do) financial ties to many of the hijackers? Considering how the Pres. has made homeland secuity such a big issue (ex. secret wiretapping that has been all OVER the news), I am indeed surprised - I wonder how does he reconcile the two?

[wrigley]

How much cash are they going to pay the U.S. for this opportunity? Where will the money be allocated first?
Perhaps this leasing deal will be something Democrats and Republicans can rally together on?

Honeykiss1974 I'd like to know how Bush would do that too.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
"2001 11 September - 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in attacks on New York and Washington are Saudi nationals."

"2003 May - Suicide bombers kill 35 people at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh hours before US Secretary of State Colin Powell flies in for planned visit"

2003 April - US says it will pull out almost all its troops from Saudi Arabia, ending a military presence dating back to the 1991 Gulf war. Both countries stress that they will remain allies. (of course they will...typical straddling of the fence by our dear "friends". This parenthetical was added by muah, Phasad)


from the following source:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/820515.stm

Oh, thanks - now how about something regarding the United Arab Emirates?

I'm one of the biggest opponents of the House of Saud that you'll meet - but I don't understand why you're connecting these ties to the UAE. I'm asking for a citation because I've not seen that claim (that the gov't of the UAE actively supports terrorism) to the same extent I've seen with SA (which I agree with).

[texas*princess]

Is it 2008 yet?

[Denise_DPhiE]

I am sick over this. This is about business and big giant $$$. Bush does not give a fat rats patootie about homeland security. Maybe this company TODAY is on the up and up but it is an easy place for potential terrorists to gain employment and smuggle things in through our ports and blow up more of my friends and neighbors. Why couldn't we hire the Swiss Guard like the Vatican???

Please make this nightmare end.

Denise

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
There are many Republicans (even some of his hardcore support base) that are in opposition of this sale as well so I'm not so sure if its a clear case of "Reps vs Dems". Nevertheless, I can't believe it either - I mean really, handing over operation to a company that had (and maybe still do) financial ties to many of the hijackers? Considering how the Pres. has made homeland secuity such a big issue (ex. secret wiretapping that has been all OVER the news), I am indeed surprised - I wonder how does he reconcile the two?

Yeah, I agree. I stated repub v dem for simplicity. I do recognize that quite a few republicans are concerned about this initiative as well. Thanks for pointing that out. I also mentioned it in that way because of the charges being put out there about dems and racially profiling the country and company that are buying the ports. That was really what got to me.

[DeltAlum]

Hello, Mr. Fox, here are the keys to the hen house per our contract. Oh, and your check will be in the mail shortly.

Enjoy your lunch.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Hello, Mr. Fox, here are the keys to the hen house per our contract. Oh, and your check will be in the mail shortly.

Enjoy your lunch.

AGAIN - can you show me where the government of the UAE has shown any propensity toward terrorism?

Or are we assuming that every nation in the region has terrorist tendencies? If we are, it sure makes the Iraq situation a lot more pressing . . . or should we assume that propinquity ensures propensity? That makes perfect sense, considering the 'cell' nature of the major terrorist bodies . . .

Seriously. I'm not all the way for this deal, but I'm not entirely sure we have proof of the quasi-xenophobic claims . . . if someone cites some literature for me, though, I'll be glad to jump on the anti-Arab bandwagon (after all, they ARE the new Bond villains, right?) in this thread.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
AGAIN - can you show me where the government of the UAE has shown any propensity toward terrorism?

Nope. Actually, your points are all well taken, but the situation does leave room for skeptics, doesn't it?

You (or at least I) simply have to wonder how much more difficult it will be to weed out potential terrorists in a company from that part of the world -- and how much oversight the US Government can apply. Or maybe how much more difficult the decision might make that oversight.

Given the above, I have to wonder why any administration would make this kind of deal.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Nope. Actually, your points are all well taken, but the situation does leave room for skeptics, doesn't it?

You (or at least I) simply have to wonder how much more difficult it will be to weed out potential terrorists in a company from that part of the world -- and how much oversight the US Government can apply. Or maybe how much more difficult the decision might make that oversight.

Given the above, I have to wonder why any administration would make this kind of deal.

I think I agree with the last sentence, but not because I agree with your conclusions - it's more because of how scary your conclusions really are, and how many people on here take them as fact without any sort of consideration.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Some of the Sept. 11th highjackers came from UAE and laundered money through their banking system. That's not the UAE government, but I think it raises concerns.

My question is why doesn't the US takeover the shipping operations of its own ports and harbors.

Locally, the most outspoken opponents of this deal are Republicans Rep. Peter King and Rep. Vito Fossella and Democrats Sen. Schumer and Sen. Clinton.

[AKA_Monet]

KSig RC--

I don't know how bonafide the source is, but they reported it on CNN or ABC--one of those channels that the UAE banking system laundered money for both Osama and the USS Cole terrorists groups.

That in no way reflects on the government. But the real deal is how is the US allowing a foreign government owned company to run 5 dominant ports in the US? It would be one thing if it was a non-government company based in UAE. But this is a government owned company and I thought the US was not allowed to do business with "government owned companies"... Where am I wrong in my thinking? I thought there was a bidding process for fair and free trade? Maybe I'm just a little wacky to think that...