Bush faces split with key allies over UAE port deal (AFP)

We're not selling the ports, it's the administration of the ports. And they've been in the hands of a British company for a good long time now. So, the only reason people are getting upset about this must be because it's an Arab nation looking to buy them. That of course, implies racisim.
 
Seems to me its more of a fear issue than a racism issue. Its easy to make the racism argument though when you are on the side of trying to push this deal through.
 
194GVan
Seems to me its more of a fear issue than a racism issue. Its easy to make the racism argument though when you are on the side of trying to push this deal through.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly not on either side. But people would be afraid ONLY because they are Arab, the current country that has admin rights to the ports is British. So it's not a foriegn thing, it's an Arabian thing.
 
Swift
I'm honestly not on either side. But people would be afraid ONLY because they are Arab, the current country that has admin rights to the ports is British. So it's not a foriegn thing, it's an Arabian thing.
Click to expand...
Oh dont worry, I wasnt trying to accuse you of choosing sides, although I realize it might have come off that way. I didnt mean that "you" in the literal sense. :D

It is indeed not a foreign issue, its totally an Arab issue. I just think alot of people are uncomfortable with the deal. Regardless of how that makes the Arabs feel, I think they have a right to be uncomfortable with it.

Personally I think its something to be concerned with, and to look at very closely, rather than to just hastily veto the decision through. I don't know enough about it to take sides, but it needs to not be rushed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

Well thats some new info on the subject I happened to come across. Discuss. I have to go back to work ;)
 
Swift
We're not selling the ports, it's the administration of the ports. And they've been in the hands of a British company for a good long time now. So, the only reason people are getting upset about this must be because it's an Arab nation looking to buy them. That of course, implies racisim.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, it's not a racist issue.

FACT: the UAE has ties to drug smuggling.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2086.html
FACT: the UAE has laundered money for Al Quaieda.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108074.html
FACT: the UAE has smuggled nuclear weapons through their ports.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/20/lt.01.html
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/transshipment-milestones.html
FACT: Dubai Ports is a state-owned business.
http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=DUB
FACT: Dubai Ports would also be running two military ports.
(unable to find link that is not tainted)

With all of these things, it's hard to paint it as simple racism. There are legitimate security concerns which must be addressed before the sale can be justified. Just because Treasury Secretary John Snow owns a significant stake in this company is no reason to authorise the sale.

What's needed is for the federal government to follow the laws about a foreign sale like this. By law, a review is required, but the deal is being pushed through before the review has been taken place.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf

I don't think this is much ado about nothing; this is about the rule of law.
 
My question is simply this, Do you think this story would have even made the news if it was a European country buying the port admin rights?

BTW, nothting you posted was incorrect.
 
Swift
My question is simply this, Do you think this story would have even made the news if it was a European country buying the port admin rights?
Click to expand...

The fact that it was previously owned by a british corporation implies that the answer is no. If it were an east european nation, though, I assume that it would make the news (Russia is the only obvious answer here, although I bet that if it were a Chinese firm we'd also see a high level of scrutiny). An egyptian company might have risen less of an eyebrow, but just barely.

The thing is, we've got our allies that we're comfortable with and we've got nations we're not comfortable with. I don't know if this can be simply chalked up to racism. Sure, the knee-jerk reaction is racism. Scratch the surface, and there could well be something underneath. The question is, do we ignore the stuff underneath just because of the surface racism?

I don't think that it's an easy question to answer.
 
No, it probably wouldn't have made the news if it was a European country. Except France. People are scared that UAE might have terrorist connections or somehting. That is kind of racist, though for an understandable reason. UAE is one of our allies, though, isn't it? Why would we sell the administration of the ports anyway? Will the UAE company do it for cheaper than the British company?
 
China do run port(s) in the U.S. Probably on the west coast though. Some people are concerned about UAE taking over these ports, indeed due to the "Arab" issue. From what I've read, Dubai/UAE do have ties to 9/11 just like Saudi Arabia, so it's understandable. From what I understand, UAE running these ports does not mean that they will have control over the customs or port securities, so I don't think we have an issue there.

Two problems I see on this:

1) Opposition is claiming that Bush Administration kept this deal in the dark until the last minute. Somehow, I don't think Bush did this in order to stop the "racists". Real reason? I don't know.

2) That Bush is threatening to veto any attempts for an review. No review? We are letting an Middle East based company run major U.S. Ports, we don't need to at least review this? Almost all of our terrorist enermies are from Middle East, including UAE. This just doesn't make any sense.
 
And yet, the legally required 45 day review was not conducted. It's as simple as that. Will the administration follow the law or not?
 
Hillary Clinton is introducing a bill to prevent this. It will make it illegal for any foreign governmenr or foreign government controlled entity to control US ports.

I know the Chinese have ports on the west coast. What is this going to do? This might upset diplomatic issues with more than just the UAE.

I have two thoughts on this.

1) The UAE has allowed us to use their country for staging points of missions and they have completely complied with every request we have made in the War on Terror. The White House, State Department, and Defense may all be agreeing and pushing it through because this is the UAE calling in the debt. Just my theory.

2) The average American knows little or nothing about the UAE and most people I tell about this don't react when I say UAE, but when I say United Arab Emirates they react as if I said United ARAB Emirates.

If we can stop this deal because it is an Arab country and some of their citizens were involved in 9/11 then we should be able to profile and pull every Middle Eastern looking person out of line at airports. Instead I have seen old ladies have their bags checked while they they get passed through. I feel good knowing that we are not going to racially profile while grandma is getting a $300 fine for having a finger nail file in her purse.


In all honesty I am walking the line on this. I don't know enough to fully make an opinion. I don't see why we should stop anyone from buying the British company, but I do question if it creates a security issue or not. I also think that the way this appears to be getting rushed is suspicious, but for all I know it has been floating around for a while. I do know a local radio talk show host mentioned it a while back when it was first announced and then I didn't hear anything for a week or two, which is when everyone else jumped on it.

I'm currently in a wait and see before making an opinion position.
 
Swift
I hope that bill dies in commitee.
Click to expand...
“We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27.”
Click to expand...
I think they are trying to get it immediately on the floor for a vote.

I'm not sure how emergency legislation works, I just know that the sale goes into effect on March 2 so that means they don't have time for the full committee and then full senate process with the debate that could go along with this.
 
This is so sick. Racist policy and a double standard. Man, I'm not saying the sale should go through, I'm just saying it shouldn't be blocked by the gov't.
 
Why do I get the feeling Hillary Clinton doesn't really care about the ports? Maybe she knows something we don't, but I suspect she's using this to hammer on Bush.
 
a6m5
Why do I get the feeling Hillary Clinton doesn't really care about the ports? Maybe she knows something we don't, but I suspect she's using this to hammer on Bush.
Click to expand...
I doubt she knows anything extra considering thsi seems haphazard and like it will affect relations with other countries as well.

I can see it now if this gets passed:
  • The British company goes bankrupt and these ports have no administration.
  • Other ports lose their administration companies due to this law.
  • Finally, the US government takes up the job and raises all our taxes to pay for it, or Halliburton takes over. They're the only American company I can think of that has the capabilities to run thes kinds of operations.
Of course after that all happens she will accuse Bush and Cheney of a conspiracy to give these contracts to Halliburton in the first place. Because that's the kind of evil genius idiots that they are.
 

Similar threads

Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro
Duke
Arafat's... legacy?
Replies
21
Views
878
Carl.
Carl.

Latest Posts

Back