Arab Company Slated to Run American Ports

[Jagger69]

I'm sure many of you have been reading about the Bush administration signing off on a deal that would enable a company from the United Arab Emirates to assume control of the management of 6 major ports in the USA....New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The approval has been justified by the administration since the UAE has been a "good friend and ally" of the USA in the war against terror.

Some facts about the United Arab Emirates:

– 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.

Additionally, 2 of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE.

BUT WAIT....it gets worse....!!!!

The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From monday’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

(the current British management company) just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Taken from this website:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/

This is just insane in my book. Why don't we just send a formal invitation to Al Qaeda to explore this new opportunity to commit a terrorist act on American soil?

I think Bush has finally lost his mind.

:dunno: :wtf: :dunno:

 

[Buddah]

I find it kind of funny. Before the Democrats were all on Bush for "Racial Profiling" in targeting potential terrorists.

Now that an arab country has been selected to run this port, who is doing the racial profiling.

 

[JiDoKwan]

You'll have to trust Georgie-Porgie on this one it will all work out in the end.:lame: :throwup: :moon: :crying:

 

[Jagger69]

I find it kind of funny. Before the Democrats were all on Bush for "Racial Profiling" in targeting potential terrorists.

Now that an arab country has been selected to run this port, who is doing the racial profiling.

The dems??? Last time I looked there were a ton of Repubs that were up in arms about this so it isn't a partisan issue by any stretch.

That aside, I'm not talking racial profiling of individuals here....it's the UAE that's the problem. The fact that the UAE happens to be an Arab country is a certainly a fact but beside the point I was making....they aided the terrorists, plain and simple. Maybe my topic title should have read "Company from Terrorist-supporting Middle-Eastern Nation Slated to run American Ports". Would that be more politically correct?

I find it kind of funny that the neocons blindly follow this president no matter what ridiculous decision he makes.

 

[member2686]

Several points to ponder:

The UAE has been very cooperative in the capture and arrest of many Jihadists. In fact, they were the ones who found and arrested the man responsible for masterminding the attack of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. THEY found him and arrested him when we (the USA) couldn't.

The UAE, as a country, is PRO-American. Go to Dubai - the street language is ENGLISH because it is so multi-cultural and multi-national. It's an international business center and a lush tourist destination and welcomes people from all over the world.

Terrorists are born in countries all over the world, and sometimes they move elsewhere to do their evil-doings. Do we blame an entire nation for these evil people? Sometimes we do, and that's ignorant. Should we? Absolutely not. Think of Hitler and Osama. Hitler was born in Austria, not in Germany, where he implemented his horrors. Osama was born in Saudi Arabia but left that country as Hitler left his, and as the 9/11 hijackers left theirs, to mastermind and implement their hateful "political" deeds. Do we cease friendly relations and international political and business dealings with Austria or Saudi Arabia because these people were BORN there? Do we blame Britain for the London bombings in 2005? Do we condemn Britain because the bombers there were ACTUAL BRITISH CITIZENS? Of course not. A country (or religion) should not be held responsible for its evil fanatics and extremists. GOVERNMENTS should be held responsible. That the UAE recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan is not unusual; the USA saw them (Taliban) as the governing power as well, hence our invasion and toppling of that government. THAT government DID endorse terror and harbored al qaeda terrorists willingly.

That banks in the UAE unwittingly received deposits and performed wires of funds for the al qaeda guys is no different from Timothy McVeigh's bank account receiving a wire from one of his nutjob anti-government "friends." Do we Americans then blame the USA itself for McVeigh's blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City since he was an American? Does the USA endorse terrorism? Of course not. Some of its residents and citizens DO, though.

The negative reaction to this UAE company's investment in the USA is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous. I believe it's rooted in fear, ignorance (in a literal sense), and in many cases bigotry. For goodness' sake, Japan, who attacked the USA and was its enemy in WWII, owns most of the biggest buildings (and much of the real estate/land) in Manhattan. I don't see anyone going wild in objection to THAT!

The company who is going to operate some of the rudimentary port activities is Dubai-based, not funded by or funding terrorists. The normal screenings, patrolling, and investigative security duties will still be performed by U.S. agencies and departments. To me, this is reactionary and sends a message of small-mindedness to the world, that because a nation is dominated by Muslims and populated by Arabs (and many foreigners doing business and working there), the USA rejects them.

Isolationist ideology of the USA during WWII, turning its eyes away from Hitler's rise to power, and only involving itself in WWII after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor - that sort of isolationism seems to be where we're headed if we reject principally-Muslim or Arab countries' business.

I find that attitude atrocious and a step backwards in the global community.

I could be wrong, but that's my :2 cents:s' worth. :hatsoff:

 

[Jagger69]

Nightfly,

Your well-written and insightful post assumes that the adverse reaction to this is based on bigotry and ignorance. If it were, I'd be right there with you.

The present intentions of the UAE are not being questioned here. I am not "blaming" the UAE for anything. I am in no way suggesting that "we cease friendly relations and international political and business dealings" with the UAE at all. Hell, the company I work for has business dealings in Dubai. The truth nonetheless remains that the UAE has shown itself to be extremely subject to exploitation by terrorist groups.

This is about doing what the administration and, in fact, bipartisan components of the US government in general, pledged to do in the wake of 911 to prevent the possibility of terrorist attack. When dealing with something as important as our seaports are to national security, it seems contrary to this pledge to take an unnecessary risk with Dubai Ports World.

In a rare happenstance, I agree with this editorial from the Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060214-102147-5104r.htm

The operative phrase is here:

The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?

Why indeed.

 

[McRocket]

The operative phrase is here:

The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?

Why indeed.

Exactly!

The Bush administration is saying that they could not find a suitable company in the United States to adequately run these ports? They had to go to a country that has a population less then 1/100th that of the U.S.?
And now Bush apparently will veto any attempt to stop this deal going through.
Why does this mean SO much to this administration?
Why would they do this (obviously) knowing that it would receive SO much flak at home?
To me it is obvious. This administration is doing (or repaying) a political favour to the UAE government (which apparently wholly owns the company in question). And I would be not surprised in the least if financial kickbacks were not part of this equation.
There is no other logical explanation to me.
Prove me wrong and I will agree. I guarantee you that no one can.

When will the masses realize that politicians can never be trusted. Ever. Everything they do must be doubted until they prove their reasons are good. And not convince. Prove.

 

[McRocket]

I just watched a BBC World reporting of this story. And it has changed my point of view to an extent.
I did not realize that most American ports are currently run by foreign owned companies.
This maybe just a simple business transaction that happens to be with a UAE owned company.

I do wonder why President Bush is threatening to - for the first time in his Presidency - veto any attempt to block the sale? Is it because he believes in free enterprise? Is it because he does not want to piss off the Middle East? Or is it as I stated in my above post that he is doing a favour for the UAE government and there maybe kickbacks involved with friends of his?

I do not know. But my instinct is not to trust him. So I will not.

However, I do not think the 9/11 connections to UAE are reason to bloack the sale. And the fact that two hyjackers came from the UAE means little to me.

 

[member2686]

What many people don't seem to be aware of is that approximately 1/3 of U.S. ports are already run by companies based in foreign countries. The same UAE company in question, in this new deal that has people in a furor, ALREADY runs the operations in 6 or 7 American port cities.

IMO it's all politics, this current furor, because it involves New York City, a city justifiably sensitive to the threat of terror.

I heard an appropriate analogy today on the radio re: this topic. The company is like a check-in counterperson at an airport. They decide what goes where with your checked bags - tagging it so it meets you at your destination airport. They have nothing to do with the content of the bags - that's left up to security to X-ray, inspect, etc. That's what this company would be doing - loading and unloading the cargo carriers from boats, and the USA's security departments would still be responsible for inspection of all incoming and outgoing freight.

This furor seems to be political opportunism and driven by a lack of education as to how things are already running. I find it unfortunate and it makes the USA look horribly intolerant; the people making the most noise about this seem not to have done their homework before raising their fists into the air.

:2 cents:

 

[D-rock]

I don't necessarily have a fear of the UAE taking over the ports as much as I think it is sad that the USA supposedly being the greatest most powerful nation in the history of humanity can't even do stuff like run it own ports. I mean where will it end, we don't make our own stuff anymore, we don't own a lot of the biggest commercial buildings in our country, we don't run our own ports, and because of globalization it is starting to get impossible to tell what money goes where and who really owns and controls what, and it was incredibly hard to know that stuff before. I would also say there is a security risk when you give foreign governments control of things like ports, and it isn't just because the corporation is based in a Arab country that bothers me. I wouldn't even want people from the UK or France or similar nations (no offense to them) running them. Just because somebody doesn't handle things like x-rays, inspections, and searches doesn't mean they couldn't use their position as the operators of the port to make it easier to smuggle things into the country. I am also not entirely convinced the UAE and the people who run it are that trustworthy. I agree with McRocket, when I first heard about this the first thing that came to my mind was the possibility that some political favor was being repaid somewhere.

 

[poggy]

I can't see a problem really,after all UAE already most likely run half of your country.How do you mean your asking,one word 'Gas' it fuels your cars and things.One hell of a lot of it come from UAE,so if you got anthing against UAE 'their already in your country' and running a big part of it.So my question is whats the fuss about them taking over 6 ports as I say they could have done whatever you think there planning already.

 

[jdb67]

The short of it is GWB does what is in the best interest of the Bush Family.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

G.W. doesn't care...he's probabaly getting a big payday from somebody, he only has 2 years left as pres. and doesn't need to worry about re-election. He'll have a secret service detail to protect his hillbilly ass for the rest of his worthless life...why should he give a crap about anybody else...he hasn't so far.

 

[McRocket]

G.W. doesn't care...he's probabaly getting a big payday from somebody, he only has 2 years left as pres. and doesn't need to worry about re-election. He'll have a secret service detail to protect his hillbilly ass for the rest of his worthless life...why should he give a crap about anybody else...he hasn't so far.

Well, actually he has closer to 3 years left. But I do not greatly disageree with the rest. Somebody must be getting something out of this - money wise.

 

[mythex]

I think it's all about politics and OIL...
all of us think have know this before that Bush plan is try to "conquer" ther oil in most part of the world and try to be ally with UAE is one of the Bush plan.

I have no Idea what american think but to me it is unforgiveable.

 

[spiceworld]

I just smile and shake my head at this.

 

[Jagger69]

I find it unfortunate and it makes the USA look horribly intolerant; the people making the most noise about this seem not to have done their homework before raising their fists into the air.

:2 cents:

I agree about foreign management in general being a huge problem (of key strategic facilites like seaports) but that's a whole other argument. On a more direct note, here's today's "homework" assignment for you....

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

 

[McRocket]

I agree about foreign management in general being a huge problem (of key strategic facilites like seaports) but that's a whole other argument. On a more direct note, here's today's "homework" assignment for you....

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

Okay, now if that is true; then I am even more convinced that this is political favouritism and financial kickbacks.


Great thread, btw Jagger69.

 

[Jagger69]

Mcrocket.....

It's true all right. It was part of Tenet's testimony to the commission. Just do a google search and you'll find plenty to back it up. Just one example:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20...xIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

I am a liberal but I am not a fool. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....well, you know the rest.

We can't afford this risk. Why is Bush so adamant about this (he has threatened his first veto EVER over this)? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

[McRocket]

Why is Bush so adamant about this (he has threatened his first veto EVER over this)?

My thoughts EXACTLY.