UAE A good Deal

[LHardy]

Aside from all the knee jerk reactions to the Port deal, which I also had, here are some postives and It's just to damn bad reaons for the UAE deal.

The deal is not about port securty or about a foriegn country handling port security.
Americans still and will have control over all aspects of port security. The longshoremen tried to block a better security system from being implamented in California a couple years ago. So using concern for security, from those oppossed based on security reasons, are false and hype only. The security will remain as is or even stronger.

Americans will not loose their jobs. It is a buy out of an existing system. If anyone looses a job it will be in upper management and that should make the blue collars very happy.

The handling of port operations is run by a foriegn country already. This just happens to be a differant foriegn country.

I don't recall complaints when China took over both sides of the Panama Canal.

It's just to damn bad - there are not more companies involved in this buisness that are US owned. There are not so we must get over it. There are only 5 large enough companies in the world able to run port operations.
Again "NOT" security.
Haliburton may have the ability. Let's ask them to run the ports.

Has it not been the position of the Democrat party for the US to run our countries national security decisions through the UN? Yes it has. So any screaming about the securty being turned over to a foriegn country is a false cry by Dems. They prefer it that way.
Again - This is not about running the port security.

If it is about terrorism. Why would a company spend 80 billion to attack the US through our ports? When all they have to do now is fill containers with what ever they want and only 10% of those are checked anyways, They could also send a bus load of weapons up from the southern boarder for a few hundred.
They could also go right into Lackawanna and hire some kid to preform a suicide mission into the Hydro plant for free. Who needs to spend 80 billion?

I would gather that most who oppose this also have not cracked open a world map and located the UAE on that map. If you do you will also understand the plan behind this friendliness to the deal.
The UAE is a good deal and it can provide national security. Jobs will remain in America. The knee jerks are just that.

[Pauldo]

Originally posted by LHardy
Aside from all the knee jerk reactions to the Port deal, which I also had, here are some postives and It's just to damn bad reaons for the UAE deal.

The deal is not about port securty or about a foriegn country handling port security.
Americans still and will have control over all aspects of port security. The longshoremen tried to block a better security system from being implamented in California a couple years ago. So using concern for security, from those oppossed based on security reasons, are false and hype only. The security will remain as is or even stronger.

Americans will not loose their jobs. It is a buy out of an existing system. If anyone looses a job it will be in upper management and that should make the blue collars very happy.

The handling of port operations is run by a foriegn country already. This just happens to be a differant foriegn country.

I don't recall complaints when China took over both sides of the Panama Canal.

It's just to damn bad - there are not more companies involved in this buisness that are US owned. There are not so we must get over it. There are only 5 large enough companies in the world able to run port operations.
Again "NOT" security.
Haliburton may have the ability. Let's ask them to run the ports.

Has it not been the position of the Democrat party for the US to run our countries national security decisions through the UN? Yes it has. So any screaming about the securty being turned over to a foriegn country is a false cry by Dems. They prefer it that way.
Again - This is not about running the port security.

If it is about terrorism. Why would a company spend 80 billion to attack the US through our ports? When all they have to do now is fill containers with what ever they want and only 10% of those are checked anyways, They could also send a bus load of weapons up from the southern boarder for a few hundred.
They could also go right into Lackawanna and hire some kid to preform a suicide mission into the Hydro plant for free. Who needs to spend 80 billion?

I would gather that most who oppose this also have not cracked open a world map and located the UAE on that map. If you do you will also understand the plan behind this friendliness to the deal.
The UAE is a good deal and it can provide national security. Jobs will remain in America. The knee jerks are just that.

There were all kinds of complaints about the Red Chinese taking over the Panama Canal. One in particular that stands out was from Admiral Moorer. Here are the links:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/172958.shtml

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16790

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I don't think the UAE government would spend $80 million so it could blow up one of the ports it operates in the U.S.

The UAE government professes to be an ally. That doesn't mean its people feel the same way. There is a big difference between what the leadership and wealthy elite in a very wealthy country feel and what the rest of the population feels.

The UAE has its share of radicals. And it just takes one.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
I don't think the UAE government would spend $80 million so it could blow up one of the ports it operates in the U.S.

The UAE government professes to be an ally. That doesn't mean its people feel the same way. There is a big difference between what the leadership and wealthy elite in a very wealthy country feel and what the rest of the population feels.

The UAE has its share of radicals. And it just takes one.

Not certain total what you are getting at here.
If it is that the people of the UAE don't like the deal? I am not certain if that is true.

Individual radical fanatics.
Here is one, Tim Mcvay.(sp)
Any one individual, can at anytime of their own choosing destroy anything they set their mind to. No one or country can ever defend against such an attack.

[LHardy]

More Good Reasons;

We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port in foreign countries.

The United Arab Emirates is a U.S. military partner in the global war.

The UAE is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.

Air Force U-2 spy planes and Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft have been based at al-Dhafra air base, along with KC-10 aerial refueling planes.

U.S. sailors and Marines regularly make liberty calls at the port of Jebel Ali, near the UAE's largest city, Dubai.

In March 2000 the UAE and the United States completed a sales agreement for 80 of the most sophisticated versions of the F-16 fighter jet.

The threat to commercial shipping in the Gulf during the "tanker war" between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was the impetus for the United States to develop closer ties to the UAE. Ties grew much closer after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

The formal basis for the U.S.-UAE military relationship is a defense cooperation agreement signed in 1994.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
More Good Reasons;

We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port in foreign countries.

The United Arab Emirates is a U.S. military partner in the global war.

The UAE is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.

Air Force U-2 spy planes and Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft have been based at al-Dhafra air base, along with KC-10 aerial refueling planes.

U.S. sailors and Marines regularly make liberty calls at the port of Jebel Ali, near the UAE's largest city, Dubai.

In March 2000 the UAE and the United States completed a sales agreement for 80 of the most sophisticated versions of the F-16 fighter jet.

The threat to commercial shipping in the Gulf during the "tanker war" between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was the impetus for the United States to develop closer ties to the UAE. Ties grew much closer after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

The formal basis for the U.S.-UAE military relationship is a defense cooperation agreement signed in 1994.

I'm opposed to the deal, but, probably not for the reason most anti-deal people give.

My problem is that Dubai Ports Global (I believe that is the name) is totally owned by the U.A.E. government.

I don't think the U.A.E. would let the U.S. government control their airports or ports through a U.S. government owned company.

If it was public company owned by private citizens of the U.A.E no one would be this outraged.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by mikewrona
I'm opposed to the deal, but, probably not for the reason most anti-deal people give.

My problem is that Dubai Ports Global (I believe that is the name) is totally owned by the U.A.E. government.

I don't think the U.A.E. would let the U.S. government control their airports or ports through a U.S. government owned company.

If it was public company owned by private citizens of the U.A.E no one would be this outraged.

They wouldn't control the ports. They would just run the buisness of the ports. Control of what comes into this country is still in the hands of the US government.
They would not be able to dictate to anyone who is allowed to dock and who is not allowed.
That has been done by the mafia in this country for decades at our ports. The longshoremen dictating which ships are or are not unloaded in a quick and safe fashion.

[LHardy]

Other good reasons:
From Treasury Secretary John Snow -
"Let me say that, having vetted the process, and having concluded that it would not present national security risks, the implication of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome,"

Joe Lieberman: Don't Trash Dubai Deal
Sen. Joseph Lieberman was urging caution.
"Dubai and the United Arab Emirates are allies of ours in the war on terrorism.
So I don't think we want to just because it's a Dubai company, even owned by the government, we want to exclude them from doing business here," he added.
Lieberman reminded: "The more you look at it, the fact is that a lot of terminals in America are already owned by foreign companies
The truth is I worry more about the failure to invest enough in port security in America through the Homeland Security Department to detect dangerous items, WMD, coming in here than I worry right now about this sale."

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
Not certain total what you are getting at here.
If it is that the people of the UAE don't like the deal? I am not certain if that is true.

Individual radical fanatics.
Here is one, Tim Mcvay.(sp)
Any one individual, can at anytime of their own choosing destroy anything they set their mind to. No one or country can ever defend against such an attack.

Why increase the chances by entering into a deal with a country that has a dubvious record on terrorism?

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
They wouldn't control the ports. They would just run the buisness of the ports. Control of what comes into this country is still in the hands of the US government.
They would not be able to dictate to anyone who is allowed to dock and who is not allowed.
That has been done by the mafia in this country for decades at our ports. The longshoremen dictating which ships are or are not unloaded in a quick and safe fashion.

I understand what you are saying. But if an Iranian, Sudanese, Syrian owned company wanted to operate the ports, there is no way this administration would allow it. No matter how much they said this is just a business deal.

[Pauldo]

Originally posted by mikewrona
I understand what you are saying. But if an Iranian, Sudanese, Syrian owned company wanted to operate the ports, there is no way this administration would allow it. No matter how much they said this is just a business deal.

Here is a solution to solve everything. Have the Red Chinese operate the ports! Most of the goods imported into the USA are from Red China so let them unload it. In addition, Red China is a friend of the USA so why not let them have it. COSCO already runs the port of Long Beach, CA so why not six more ports?

US citizens love a trade deficit otherwise they wouldn't be buying so many cheap Red Chinese goods! Americans love buying Tommy Hilfiger, Chaps, Nike, etc. The Red Chinese could also police the ports by offering soldiers.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Why increase the chances by entering into a deal with a country that has a dubvious record on terrorism?

Here let me put you on the spot. Not in a bad way, just asking for your personal solution to the problem you have stated.

How do you make an enemy your friend and allie?

[Pauldo]

Originally posted by LHardy
Here let me put you on the spot. Not in a bad way, just asking for your personal solution to the problem you have stated.

How do you make an enemy your friend and allie?

Drop the "big one" on them like we did in 1946!

[LHardy]

Originally posted by Pauldo
Drop the "big one" on them like we did in 1946!

As much as I like your attitude for open minded thinking. I don't believe that is a first choice everytime.

[DR_GONZO]

Key points about this good deal that will more than likely be ignored

Did the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States break the law when it rushed through the national security review in 25 days to approve the deal? A 1993 statute requires a mandatory 45-day review when a foreign government wants to buy a U.S. asset.

The deal was approved weeks ago by a secret board directed by Treasury Secretary John W. Snow. The New York Daily News reported that the Bush administration could have a conflict of interest. Snow was chairman of CSX Corp., which sold its own international port operations to the Emirates firm for $1.15 billion less than two years ago.

In addition, the newspaper reported, David Sanborn, who runs the Arab company's operations in Europe and Latin America, has been chosen by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Dubai Ports is lining up powerful supporters to persuade skeptical lawmakers the deal is a good idea. Even before the controversy erupted, the company had hired Bob Dole's law and lobbying firm, Alston & Bird LLC, to win approval for the deal. The Albright Group, led by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also has been trying to speak with members of Congress.

United Arab Emirates had early support of the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, its assistance in the sales of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.

United Arab Emirates is widely believed to be a major source of financing for radical Islamic movements, and operates one of the most repressive regimes in the Persian Gulf region.

The selling of America continues.