Uae Port Deal Thoughts....

[72offsuitt 0]

I was wondering what everyone thinks about this Port Deal with the United Arab Emirates. I see Bush has just said today that he is now worried about how the Middle East will take to America saying No to them.I found that strange, because he sure didn't seem to care about what they thought about going to war with Iraq, but I guess there different issues.However I don't want to make this into a right-wing hate thread, so I will say that I don't think anyone would care if Norway were the one's taking over the ports?I realize that republican congressman, and senators had to go agaisnt the President because so many our up for re-election.Whats your thoughts?

[Petoria 0]

I think it's ridiculous to say No to this contract just bc they're from a certain part of the world.If it were a country that we have had problems with, then I wouldnt be supporting it, but they've been an ally, they've always been an ally.What if Israel would have gotten the contract, would you support that?(open question)

[ajs510 122]

I think if the deal had gone through without the meda jumping all over it, no one would have noticed a difference at all. At least right away. That being said, I'm against any foreign goverment having control of such a vital part of our nations trade capaabilities, whether it's the UAE, Israel, Great Britain or otherwise. Subsidize the industry and keep it in house, anything else is just asking for trouble.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Bush is right. That can happen sometimes.Bouncing back the UAE deal is no different than picking out Arabs from airplane lines and searching them instead of old ladies and pregnant women.If you don't support the above, you can't support blocking the UAE company.If we don't have moderate nations like the UAE on our side, believing that we hold the intellectual high ground on this war on terror, then we're going to lose, period.

I think if the deal had gone through without the meda jumping all over it, no one would have noticed a difference at all. At least right away. That being said, I'm against any foreign goverment having control of such a vital part of our nations trade capaabilities, whether it's the UAE, Israel, Great Britain or otherwise. Subsidize the industry and keep it in house, anything else is just asking for trouble.

I'm ok with this; I wish the government would've come up with the idea before it was obviously spitting in UAE's face.

[princeof56k 0]

This deal stinks on both sides. So much so that I dont know what to believe and I cant give an honest opinion.It would be hard to believe that the Bush Administration is not giving a political favor UAE, and that their point about any county should be able to run the port is a distand second (although tht point is valid).It also hard to believe that the ones opposing this deal are doing so only because of security issues (even though that is a good point as well), and that they arent getting political contributions from a rivaling group that wants to control port instead of the UAE.We are never going to know whats really going on here.

[72offsuitt 0]

I could understand not wanting Iran or North Korea( I know extreme examples) to run our ports, but is it the Holland who runs them right now? In my opinion our own country should run the ports but I don't have any idea what the costs are, what companies are available to do it, and ect.While I am not a fan of Bush, I think he is getting the raw end of the deal.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I've been waiting for this thread.I have to say that I, for one, was surprised when all this first came about, to find that we didn't own our own ports. That to me sounds ridiculous, but anywhoo.From everything I've read on the subject, I can see no reason for us not wanting the UAE to run the ports. Number one, it seems their involvement will be solely on a "blind trust" type level, with little to no control over the ports (which to me makes no business sense, but I digress). And second, the UAE is by far our greatest ally in the Middle East, I'd say even above Kuwait. Their interests are very similar to ours, and it benifits them greatly to be anti-terrorist, not the other way around.

[72offsuitt 0]

I've been waiting for this thread.I have to say that I, for one, was surprised when all this first came about, to find that we didn't own our own ports. That to me sounds ridiculous, but anywhoo.From everything I've read on the subject, I can see no reason for us not wanting the UAE to run the ports. Number one, it seems their involvement will be solely on a "blind trust" type level, with little to no control over the ports (which to me makes no business sense, but I digress). And second, the UAE is by far our greatest ally in the Middle East, I'd say even above Kuwait. Their interests are very similar to ours, and it benifits them greatly to be anti-terrorist, not the other way around.

But America only see's them as a Muslim country who is out to get us.Sad

[ShakeZuma 585]

But America only see's them as a Muslim country who is out to get us.Sad

Yeah, I didn't put it in my original post because I thought it would sound funny, but I actually feel bad for the UAE. I mean, they've always been one of the first countries out there to respond when we needed some kind of help, ie Katrina (if memory serves, I think they gave 100 mil, I could be wrong). And after all that, this is how we thank them. "Get out of our country you dirty Arabs!"

[mk 11]

It is absolutely a non-issue, and the Republicans did a masterful job of providing a media smokescreen while things went from bad to worse in Iraq. They didn't even need the Dems for this one, they just fought amongst themselves and created a nice little media snowstorm.

[Petoria 0]

Obviously it would be preferable if an American company could run the ports, but if none of them put forth a legitimate bid, I dont mind having an ally running the ports.

[Trustno1 0]

I think that all of the Bush propaganda about fear and imminent threats has finally come back to bite him in the ass. The 2004 election campaigns were all about how the Republicans were tough on terror and that any vote against them would result in more 9/11 type attacks. Now this port deal comes along and the same congressmen that this administration helped get elected by playing the fear card has turned on him.I for one side with Bush and think that canceling the deal just based upon the fact that the company is from the middle east will have repercussions for many years to come.Kind of ironic, like a black fly in your chardonnay.

[Farnan 0]

I for one, don't want ANY foreign entity or government in control of areas that have national security concerns. Be it UAE, Brittain, Canada or Afghanistan, I don't care how good of an ally--i want americans controling the safety of this nation.What people fail to understand is that, regardless of the UAE's efforts, there ARE going to be people in that organization who DO NOT LIKE THE USA or its policies. Those people could have access or obtain access to sensitive security measures employed at our ports. This is extremely valuable intelligence that could be exploited by terrorists. The odds of an American turning over such information is negligable compared to what could happen with a UAE run company. And this risk remains REGARDLESS of the efforts of UAE to support the war on terrorism.What gets me is that all of the sudden GWB is concerned about what countries THINK!?! Where was this when his administration authorized the use of secret torture facilities througout the world? Where was this when GWB was thumbing his nose at the world community during the march towards war with Iraq? I thought when it comes to national security, we shouldn't care what other countries think?Personally, i think this whole line of argument is just another typical ad hominem attack by the GWB administration when, as usual, they're on the losing end of the substantive argument.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I think they are people in the US that would like to cause our ports harm.

[GoStags92 2]

I could understand not wanting Iran or North Korea( I know extreme examples) to run our ports, but is it the Holland who runs them right now? In my opinion our own country should run the ports but I don't have any idea what the costs are, what companies are available to do it, and ect.While I am not a fan of Bush, I think he is getting the raw end of the deal.

I'm curious what the media would do if Haliburton stood up and said they could manage the ports, because they're probably one of the *very* few American companies who could do it.

[Farnan 0]

I think they are people in the US that would like to cause our ports harm.

At least if we were in control, we'd have the operations/files/employees/managment IN the US, we'd have greater confidence in the security screening process and we'd have greater accountability. What if there is some shady sh.it going on and we need to review records--are we going to send the FBI into the UAE to get those records? Where can i get my international search warrant? Oh, but we can trust them to hand over anything that might incriminate them. Yeah...But i'm not really getting your point. Just because there are people in the US that don't like us, we should hand our ports over to a foreign company/country? So we should deal a risk by adding more risks to the equation? This doesn't make sense.And GoStags, they'd have a sh.it-fit. And rightfully so. But you know the company who will step up will probably be someone deeply connected with this administration--that is just my skeptical gut feeling coming through. My bet is on a Carlyle subsidiary. But what makes you think Halliburton is the only company capable of doing this???

[DonkSlayer 1]

At least if we were in control, we'd have the operations/files/employees/managment IN the US, we'd have greater confidence in the security screening process and we'd have greater accountability. What if there is some shady sh.it going on and we need to review records--are we going to send the FBI into the UAE to get those records? Where can i get my international search warrant? Oh, but we can trust them to hand over anything that might incriminate them. Yeah...But i'm not really getting your point. Just because there are people in the US that don't like us, we should hand our ports over to a foreign company/country? So we should deal a risk by adding more risks to the equation? This doesn't make sense.And GoStags, they'd have a sh.it-fit. And rightfully so. But you know the company who will step up will probably be someone deeply connected with this administration--that is just my skeptical gut feeling coming through. My bet is on a Carlyle subsidiary. But what makes you think Halliburton is the only company capable of doing this???

I'm really OK with the US controlling its own ports on the principle of it. I just don't want to hear anyone saying it's cool to tell the UAE "no thanks" but not yank every arab out of line in the airport (not that you have said that).

[Farnan 0]

I'm really OK with the US controlling its own ports on the principle of it. I just don't want to hear anyone saying it's cool to tell the UAE "no thanks" but not yank every arab out of line in the airport (not that you have said that).

I see where you're coming from. But i disagree that this is an Arab thing---it is a "non-us company" thing. You'd have to yank every non-us citizen out of the line in the airport to make it analogous to what i'm talking about.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I see where you're coming from. But i disagree that this is an Arab thing---it is a "non-us company" thing. You'd have to yank every non-us citizen out of the line in the airport to make it analogous to what i'm talking about.

It's analogous b/c nobody brought it up before it was a UAE company taking control, right?

[yeffy 0]

What's ridiculous about this whole thing is that we have close to zero security in our own ports as it stands now. The large majority of containers entering this country are never opened or scrutized in any way. I worked on the construction of scenery for some cruise ships. When we were done at a ship yard we would send a whole load of supplies etc. back to the US via shiiping container. I have shipped 3 containers from finland, france, and italy. All of them stopped in various ports along the way. We put tear away stickers and zip ties on the containers. None of them were ever opened along the way. Apparently this is the norm not the exception.Imagin what can fit inside a 30' X 9.5' X 8' container......

[Farnan 0]

It's analogous b/c nobody brought it up before it was a UAE company taking control, right?

Understood. But many of us didn't know that ANY of our ports were run by foreign companies. It took this for everyone to wake up.Tons of people have been yelling about port security for years--nothing has been done. It would be nice if this situation had a real impact and caused our congress to actually get off their asses. I'm not holding my breath, tho.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Imagin what can fit inside a 30' X 9.5' X 8' container......

My penis, almost....