Snubbing Dubai - Creating more terrorists

You constantly amaze me.

okie wrote : "Now that UAE is being snubbed, a country that has cooperated with us in the war on terror, how is this going to affect our situation in the Middle East ? "

have you been listening to the news , okie ?
is trans-shipping of nuclear components , moneylaundering , and forbidding israeli citizens from entering the UAE all part of "the war on terror" ?
even secratary rice doesn't seem to be too favourably impressed by the humen rights record of the UAE any more .

i've watched part of the CNN/wolf blitzer special on the UAE/dubai during the last few days . the UAE certainly seem to have a lot of money ; is that all the united states requires of an ally ?

(since i'm on the other side of the border, i should probably stay quiet on this matter . just can't help being 'curious george' ),
hbg

Good.

My bottom line is people are so ignorant about how the ports run. This is a knee jerk action by Congress without considering the law of unintended consequences here. I understand the arguments against the deal. I am simply pointing out the possibility of the risks involved here. Here we have a country that has cooperated in terms of allowing us to operate out of their country. If we snub them, what effect is that going to have on our relations there, and operations there, not only now but in the future? And is this deal really going to affect port security and how? I don't know the answers to all of this, but I submit that few people are really informed on it and do not know either. I see Congress as basicly the blind leading the blind. I think more time and more expertise needs to be brought to bear on this rather than simply snubbing the deal based on political winds.

When I started this thread, I was as much asking a question as making a definite assertion. I just don't like the way Congress makes decisions, not on an in depth understanding of it, but rather on political winds that blow concerning the deal.

Taking Saddam out didn't per se create more terrorists; it's the incredibly bad way the war has been handled since then which has 'created' the majority of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.

Your argument doesn't make any sense; the two countries aren't similar in the slightest, and the circumstances aren't similar in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Rush has a great idea today. Since the politicians want a domestic company, the perfect answer, HALLIBURTON. And give Cheney a commission for the deal.

It's moot now.

Dubai Ports World has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to a United States entity, said Sen. John Warner, reading a statement from DP World. He said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States. - CNN

Not neccessarily yet; the devil is in the details.

DP would really have to divest any sort of control whatsoever in order to satisfy the angry beast at this point.

Cycloptichorn

Schumer: "The Devil Is In The Details"
Schumer gave his take on news that Dubai Ports World will transfer operations of U.S. ports to a "U.S. entity." Watch it:

Transcript:

Let me say this: obviously this is a promising development but, of course, the devil is in the details. I think those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World, which is fully owned by the United Arab Emirates. So therefore, we would have to examine this proposal. The bottom line is, again, if the U.S. operations are fully independent in every way, that could indeed be promising. If on the other hand there is still ultimate control exercised by DP World, I don't think our goals would be accomplished and obviously we'll need to study this agreement carefully.

UPDATE: NBC White House correspondent David Gregory wonders whether the White House coordinated Dubai Ports World's announcement today:

The White House says they only knew of "rumors" of a deal, but one wonders whether there was coordination between the White House, DPW and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who announced the agreement. It's clear the White House knew, especially after meeting with congressional leaders this morning, that Congress was prepared to buck him on this.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/09/devil-in-the-details/

It seems like the only rational way to ensure security of American ports is to have them operated by Americans, or companies in countries which are at least longstanding allies with no association whatever with terrorist states. Dubai had at one time, I believe, supported the Taliban.

snubbing dubai
it is not surprising to me that the UAE - and other arab nations - have supported/co-operated with the taliban when it seemed prudent for them to do so . in the linked article the co-operation is being described as being 'pragmatic' .
a/t oxford ed : pragmatic - meddlesome, positive, dictatorial ; concerned with practical consequences or values , of state affairs .

...UAE AND THE TALIBAN...

Roxxxanne, did you steal that outfit from Xena?

Many have accused the US of supporting the Taliban at some time. Doe that mean the US can't be trusted either?

I thought of that too.

I am really hoping a deal can be worked out whereby Halliburton gets into the port business. After all, we need a domestic company that does this, and I understand we don't have any now. Is this another Rope-a-dope maneuver by Bush and his buddy Dick Cheney? Everybody knows Cheney calls all the shots (no pun intended), so thats probably whats behind this. Just kidding, but I think its very humorous, but almost embarrassing to watch Congress make their historic stand for security in the ports, especially Democrats. Of course they could care less if terrorists are calling each other in and out of the country with the plans for the next plot, or if they are crossing the borders by the dozens every week.

bookmark (just because its interesting to see the ritual alignments of opinion suddenly go all topsy-turvy on something)

Sure is, nimh, but not much more fascinating than the switch on who supports federal deficits.

Fascinating. Respect the Mass Murdering Despot, Saddam's sovereign rights, give Hamas a chance and spit in the face of our Allies, the UAE.

Does anybody here know what port has more United States Military ships in it than any other foreign port on the globe?

Does anyone remember the UAE making it clear that Iraq would stand on its own, back when still-Bill was still in charge?

Does everyone realize that in the event we decided to bomb Iran's Nuclear sites; our aircraft would likely utilize the Dubai airports?

Rewarding an Arab Country for good deeds is every bit as important as punishing them for bad one's; if you really want anyone to believe it is their country's citizens best interest we have at heart. The Port deal would only serve to give us more credibility and influence to hopefully sway the thinking tide in the direction of Western Civilization. The racist objection to same serves only to deepen the divide.

Does anyone here know who's in control of a significant portion of the Port's where the fractionally checked cargo boxes that arrive in our Ports originate? The hypocrisy being demonstrated on this issue is only surpassed by the ignorance of the average U.S.-American, who's being scared by the false boogie-man, even while being convinced that taking out a real one was a mistake. Fascinating.

It probably will.

And it will probably be at taxpayer expense.

If Halliburton doesn't want to pay full price for the leases, and we force the UAE to sell them anyway, they can sue for compensation, and maybe get a half a billion dollars from the taxpayers.

I borrowed it from Frida Kahlo:

It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.