Arab Firm to Manage Our Seaports?

[carrrnuttt]

bnaylor3400: Face it. You're only supporting this because Bush is supporting it. The essence of a sheeple. I'd rather be considered a knee-jerk than sheeple, anyday.

You never countered any of my points.

What say you to the fact that BOTH sides are speculating, and no matter how we do our "due dilligence" we will never ever be able to background-check the whole country, much less all the royals of said country, which some still consider Osama Bin Laden a hero.

And no, as much as I support McCain, one senator calling for "due dilligence" does NOT mean "don't worry, nothing will happen". He is a smart man. To me, he is saying "hey, let's not piss off the UAE." "Let's make it look like we tried, at least, no matter what we decide in the end."

What say you to:

• Erring on the side of caution. If this statement is too advanced for some people: "If we're going to make a mistake, make sure the mistake happens in our favor."

• Bin Laden being considered a hero by some of the UAE's Royal Family.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Since 9/11 new security measures are in place at the ports, therefore DPW will be under very close scrutiny and has basically agreed to be scrutinized. As long as no short cuts are taken and they pass all requirements imposed by US law or statute I see no problems allowing them to lease terminals at the ports in question. It makes good business sense and in the long term will benefit national security.

I think that's what most US citizens would like to see happen in this instance. Let's face it, those ports are already managed by foreign companies, both east and west coast. The ownership changed hands, but the people doing the work will probably be the same, regardless.

I won't have a problem with the deal as long as all the mechanisms for security remain in place. The Dubai firm would have to be complete freakin' idiots to do anything to mess this up, since everyone is now watching them.

This has the potential to be THE most scrutinized business deal to come down the pike in a long time. As long as they can stand the light of day while doing business with us, why not?

Whether we like it or not, we need favorable relations with the UAE for strategic purposes in the Gulf region. As much as I'd like to be isolationist, it just doesn't work any more.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

bnaylor3400: Face it. You're only supporting this because Bush is supporting it. The essence of a sheeple. I'd rather be considered a knee-jerk than sheeple, anyday.

You never countered any of my points.

What say you to the fact that BOTH sides are speculating, and no matter how we do our "due dilligence" we will never ever be able to background-check the whole country, much less all the royals of said country, which some still consider Osama Bin Laden a hero.

And no, as much as I support McCain, one senator calling for "due dilligence" does NOT mean "don't worry, nothing will happen". He is a smart man. To me, he is saying "hey, let's not piss off the UAE." "Let's make it look like we tried, at least, no matter what we decide in the end."

What say you to:

• Erring on the side of caution. If this statement is too advanced for some people: "If we're going to make a mistake, make sure the mistake happens in our favor."

• Bin Laden being considered a hero by some of the UAE's Royal Family.

There is no need to debate with you. Your position is clear and so is mine. You've made your point and I've made mine. You are anti-Bush and I am pro-Bush. At least we are consistent in our positions and probably nothing will ever change that. Have a nice day!


http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/#3

Excerpt:

Does foreign ownership of terminals make ports more vulnerable?

Not really, experts say. The UAE is considered a U.S. ally in the "war on terror," and many experts see the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as a hub are irrelevant. As Stephen Flynn, CFR's Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, points out, shoe-bomber Richard Reid was a British citizen, yet no objections were raised over the U.S. operations of P&O, a British company. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) have indicated they will propose legislation banning the sale of terminal operations at U.S. ports to foreign entities. But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies. Representative King's objections over internal workings of DP World are more reasonable, experts say, but the same concerns could be raised over most other shipping companies, U.S. and foreign-owned alike.


This same company manages the terminals our US Navy docks at in the UAE. That speaks volumes for the company's track record.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060226/...urity_ports_dc

Excerpt:

U.S. warships frequently call at the UAE's Jebel Ali port, which is managed by Dubai Ports.

Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem played up the company's security record as he helped inaugurate a new oil terminal used by the U.S. Navy in Djibouti, a strategically important Horn of Africa country that hosts U.S. troops hunting Islamic militants.

"The fact that the Navy still is an important customer here speaks volumes for the initiative we have in place," Bin Sulayem told the gathering on the quays beside the guided missile cruiser USS Vicksburg.