U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

"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!

Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

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

Thanks!

Re: Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

"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.

Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

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?

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.

Re: Re: Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

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).

Is it 2008 yet?

:p

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

Re: Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming the UAE is some Mecca of anti-terrorist thought in the region (pun unintended), nor am I insinuating that there are no terrorist activities in the nation. I'm just saying this:

. . . should be considered until evidence to the contrary is found - rather, we should look at the merits of the plan, as well as the potential risks, and determine if it makes fiscal sense for the government as a whole. This may help to understand arguments such as "why don't WE take over the ports?", since those considerations may have already been addressed.

(Also, I'll admit I thought the rampant xenophobia and 'guilt by association' was hilariously ironic, so I drove the discussion further in that direction on purpose - I laughed, sorry.)

Rep. Sue Myrick says it best. :)

I've missed that... Why doesn't the US control its ports? I am still a bit confused on that subject matter... Just asking?

I find it more like, doublespeak, rather than xenophobia. But it is racial profiling plain and simple. Is isn't right.

The issue for me is the US is giving a big government contract to a foreign government owned company. I think that there are probably quite a few foreign government owned companies that the US government has business relations. Which makes me begin to believe some "things" are in motion to carry out so "snaky shady chit".

That's my conspiracy theory gene that has been activated, and I cannot control it.

But giving the benefit of the doubt, it does seem rather, "shady"... Like backroom politicking is going on with some corporate giants... And Notorious V.P. Cheney is already done shot somebody, and could have killed him, so from my perspective in my world, it seems rather "tricky"...

Thats awesome! Is that letter legit?

NBC Nightly News had a story on tonight that clears part of that up. The contract is for management of the ports, which certainly has some security issues, but the security of the ports is still the responsibility of US law enforcement and military -- ie Coast Guard.

My concern is still the difficulty of oversight of the security issues such as background checks, etc. during the hiring process.

As DeltAlum pointed out, this is for port management and not security. Additionally it is a UAE based firm that is partially owned by the UAE.

Many Republicans are against this and many Democrats are for it. It's not a party issue and it's sad that someone on this site interpreted it that way.

The UAE is a hub for money laundering but that means nothing. What does mean something is the fact that Osama hung out in the UAE as detailed in the 9/11 report. What also means something is the way that the rulers there have protected charities that are terrorist fronts. And finally, China, Russia, and France have armed terrorist nations like Iran and Iraq but we are still friendly towards them. There is no black and white in diplomacy, only grays; the UAE is our ally and less of a rogue nation than Iraq.

And President Bush knew nothing about this. This has nothing to do with him. But people are here to spew vitriol. A national security agency required the company to go through stringent checks and investigations before it provided clearance.

-Rudey
--I can't wait for someone to ignore all I've written and post something anti-Republican now.

Seems to me that the politics involved here are international -- not Republican vs. Democrats.

The other thing I didn't think to mention from the "Nightly" story is that it isn't that we're suddenly giving up management of our ports to a foreign government -- the previous contracts for some of these ports was held by a British firm.

My understanding is the British firm was sold to the UAE.

I didn't catch that. Figures I suppose.

I agree with DeltAlum. Republicans and Democrats are against this.

An example is this letter from a House Republican to Bush about it...

Her gov homepage...
http://myrick.house.gov/

Her letter in pdf form..
http://myrick.house.gov/letter%20to%...AE%20ports.PDF

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...r66/Letter.jpg

There may be a labor union (dock workers) pulling some political strings here. The british owners have been lax in enforcing security in some ports (like not doing the real required background checks, employing felons).

I bet large numbers of dock workers would be fired if their criminal records were exposed.

I bet Clinton and Schumer would say anything their union donators request.

My letter to you:

Get a life.

-Rudey

Lol nice arguement for the topic.

You win at life. God will make you his right hand man because of you kindness towards people like me.

-The1calledtke

It's funny how you make a veiled attack and then expect no response huh?

What argument? You posted a letter and I posted mine. Perhaps you would benefit from the purchase of a dictionary.

I don't know what winning at life is about. Where was there a lack of kindness. I think if anything I am just confused by your irrelevant and strange posts as well as hurt by the ones that you post to only attack President Bush or Republicans :(.

-Rudey

Yes but my letter dealt with the topic. Your letter was meant to insult/attack me.

Why do you like to insult/attack people and expect people to take it?

Is it because your always right so trying to insult or hurt people makes it right? The person that you insult is suppose to agree with your statement and feel as lowly about themselves as you see them ?

No my letter was right on topic.

It's funny again how you only come on to post attacks on Republicans and the President and you annoy everyone with it. Have ksigkid and KSig RC also not made remarks about this? Have not others? Those are rhetorical questions (another word that appears in a dictionary).

You posted a letter. I posted a letter. They relate because they are both letters.

Sadly you repeatedly post these attacks :(

-Rudey

One time for all my homeys in this thread:


REP. MYRICK'S LETTER DOES NOTDEAL WITH THE TOPIC - IT PRESENTS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT, NOR DOES IT ADDRESS THE ISSUE - STOP ACTING LIKE IT IS A VALID POINT TO ADDRESS. EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD BE AGAINST THIS.

So if I post a letter about turkey hunting, that is on topic or relate since it is a letter? Good arguement.

I am aware that some people like the KSig's don't like my post. I am just posting from my beliefs. I doubt I annoy everyone.

Funny you will almost fight to the death to defend Hooiser's post that "attack" liberals or Democrats even though some people find him annoying. With me you would like to see me shot dead in some ditch because I post stuff that annoys you and some others.

Rudey,

To me, it sounds like a lot of folks are trying to get elected in 2006...

So the pulse of the nation of major areas that up for re-election some folks are distancing themselves from the Bush administration--for whatever reason.

I find this whole thing slimy and everyone needs to be voted out of office--no matter what a person's party affiliation. Especially the woman from Maine.

As far as Hilary, you may want to keep her in check--right where you can see her... Such as "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer..."

And this UAE deal... Somebody over in the United States is making money off this deal. Whoever it is, I wanna know this person...

Finally, CITGO is a foreign government owned company by Venezuela... So apparently, the Untied States does do business with government owned companies. To me, IMO, it is an unfair advantage against the US corporations. We are not allowed to be owned by our government with full government backing--although that could be a matter of contention with Halliburton and all--but, I don't think any top US held global corporations are owned by our government--like Microsoft isn't, Cisco isn't, ADM isn't, Concoco-Phillips isn't, Coca Cola isn't...

And China is covering our deficit now...

So really, who is in charge of our ports?

It seems like the rug has been taken out from under us and it happened a long time ago.

And our responsible leaders at the time were asleep at the wheel.

Manifest checks and verification may not happen, but we shall see...

Your "letter" had nothing to do with the topic. Stop pretending now. My letter related to your letter.

I don't fight for anything that isn't true.

You consistently post non-sensical poop posts like this one where you brought up being shot in a ditch. It makes me question your sanity because it is just...WEIRD. :(

-Rudey

True, you could not be more.

-Rudey

My uncle just got orders to Dubai, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Guess I need to revisit the topic.

It dealt with DeltAlum saying "the politics involved here are international -- not Republican vs. Democrats".

I gave an example of a Republican against the port deal.

I don't think many people would argue most Democrats are against it so I didn't post anything in reguards of this.

Personally I am not against the deal. I highly doubt the UAE would bring in all or even some Arab/Muslim that could possiblly be terrorist. All likelyhood the workers and most the management will be done by American workers.

I think a lot of this is because of some American see Arabs and Muslims are terrorist. The is a business deal and I don't see the UAE doing something that would hurt their investment.

The1calledTKE

How about them Red Sox..?

Hey if I am insane maybe my post will not bother you as much and you will just brush them off because they were by an insane guy.

You're probably right in that American workers would be the one's doing the work.

But I still think they are getting paid in "blood money" and that's my unfounded, non-factual opinion.

And I know it is the price of doing business. But to a point there needs to be some level of ethics. However, when we are talking about big pimps that spend a G, then hey, folks gotta bow down to the highest roller...

Right now, it's the Chinese... Tomorrow it may just well be Dubai...

What are we all gonna do? Not shop at a dolla sto? Boycott toilet tissue? Really...

The folks that do have the power in this deal are the longshoremen. If they walk... We're in trouble. And they did that in 2001 before 9-11 in up and down the west coast except Alaska...

First problem that Bush had to solve and he took the brokebackdoor route...

I've been watching too much "24" on Fox...