US Port's to be secured by UAE?

[Bigshadow]

In my opinion, we need to re-address the whole 'Free Trade is a good thing' idea. Free Trade is seldom good for an individual, while it is very good for a corporation.

Even though I do not now really see a security issue regarding the deal, I do agree with your points regarding Free Trade. I think there must be a balance between protectionism/isolation and somewhat-free trade. But the whole issue of free trade is probably best for another thread.

 

[Don Roley]

The accusations you make against Democrats could also be made against Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert, right? Oh, yeah, and Governor Pataki. So should you really be arguing against only the Democrats?

I think that speaks volumes.

No, Republicans are not behind the bill to turn over anything the goverment decides is "Strategic." The gutless wonders that are backing this are afraid of being buried in the tsunami of xenophobia and are counting on a presedential veto to stop it. That seems to be the reason they are voicing so much concern over the matter of the port deal, but it is democrats backing the trasnfering of private to public control everything from coal mines to aerospace factories that could be called 'strategic.'

But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan, there are some who have concerns.

You fail to note that the goverment really did not have a hand in anything except recognizing the Taliban. As a transportation hub, they tend to recognize anyone they can do business with.

Really, I find the idea of c- that two of the hijakers came from their country very offensive. You are going to blame an entire country for the actions of two people? What citizenship did the shoe bomber have? How long did some of the hijakers live in Germany?

And you fail to note that they have been one of the most liberal states in the region and one of out best allies. The goverment has been a great help to us and allows our ships to be based there. I am sure there are bad folks living there. But to blame the entire people and the goverment for the actions of two of it's citizens is like blaming the American goverment for Timothy McVeigh.

 

[michaeledward]

Don,

Please don't personalize this argument toward me.

As I have mentioned, I think the policy should go forward. This is the policy the American Public have voted for, over and over again.

The arguments I raise are being made by politicians of all stripes. Maybe you aren't hearing that over in Japan. But some of the loudest voices on this broo-haha are Republican leaders.

But, I do think the policy is wrong, but not because their Arabs, but because they are foreign.

Are you silent on Bloomberg, Frist, Hastert, Young, Kean, Santorum, Chaffee, Coleman, Graham?

 

[Flying Crane]

Why not?

Because in my opinion, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Don Roley]

But, I do think the policy is wrong, but not because their Arabs, but because they are foreign.

If your only problem you have with them being foreign, then why did you spefically point out that two of the hijackers come from the U.A.E.? Or everything else about the U.A.E.?

It really blows my mind when media people who previously screamed about the idea of racial profiling in airports are now tossing out the fact that two of the hijackers came from Dubai. It says that you blame an entire country, an entire race, an entire religion because of what some of it's members have done.

Countries like Australia, France and Britain have contracts with this company. Do you honestly think there would have been absoulutly no objections to that fact if there was the slightest worry or trouble?

 

[Rich Parsons]

There is a continuum between 'Isolationism' (sometimes referred to as the Monroe Doctrine) and Free Trade. We do not need to accept either a)Isolationism or b) Free Trade. There are other options.

Ross Perot predicted a Great Sucking Sound of jobs leaving for Mexico in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, ole Ross was a dingbat, but he was correct with that prediction.

The United States current trade deficit is growing month over month. The rest of the world does not seem to wish to purchase goods made by Americans. This sets the scene for recession. Globalization allows companies to own and operate functions with no local ties; generating no local revenue.

Because DPW would take its revenue home to its local coffers, it would pay little or no local taxes, which would mean that there would be no revenue to fund increased security by the Coast Guard and Customs Service. Unless we increase taxes on the income of the local workers.

In my opinion, we need to re-address the whole 'Free Trade is a good thing' idea. Free Trade is seldom good for an individual, while it is very good for a corporation.

Michael et al,

I never said there was no other option. Specifically I asked you for your input not a history lesson on recent politics.

So from what I get from your posts, is not that this is a security issue it is an issue of Free Trade and that is only free trade from one side.

i.e. The US allows anyone to build cars here and also to import cars and sell them. Yet, Japan the second largest Economy on the planet has a closed market, in that Rice and Automobiles are protected by non import in case of Rice and Tarriffs in the case of Automobiles that about double the price of a car. So in this example you are saying that free trade is not at work here, as one side has freedom and the other side does not. If this is really the case then maybe this should be a topic for a new thread, as it really has nothing to do with who owns or runs some of the ports in the USA.

As to history, I will also add to the off topic to make my point of Isolationism versus Expansionism.

In recent history, Nixon opened up China, yet, real trade was not established until recently, and even there, in China is a foreign company goes in, it is requried by law that at least 50% be owned by local investors or corporations. Yet, China had a closed economy and system, and now they have opened it as they have to be able to get the resources they need to expand.

The Soviet Union, (* No longer in existence *), fell and broke up when the countries were about bankrupt and needed to open up to trade and to grow.

East Germany (* Before the fall of the Wall in Berlin *), was a closed country and did very little trade outside, as most that was heavy industry or technology came in was from Russia and other places. After the reunification of Germany, there is still a major issue of technology and work and jobs that is vastly diferent from the Old West and East Germany.

Japan prior to WWII was closed (* Don or other Japanese history buffs can provide the exact dates and centuries of their closure *) and then expanded outward to China and Manchuria to gain resources for their growing economy, they did so by going to war.

German after WWI and before WWII was into Isolation and wanted the rest of the world to forget it, and them the world, yet, a party arose that convinced the people to move forward and expand to regain their glory and might.

In the Spanish American War, The US took Cuba and also the Phillipine Islands from Spain. We gave Cuba their freedom right away, yet the PI the USA held onto as a base of operation in the Far East, until plans of turn over were interrupted by WWII. Once retaken after WWII their freedom was given.

Even though the US had the PI during the 20's and 30's the US wanted to be isolated and it took the Japanese to attack and awake the sleeping giant as the US entered the war.


I could continue back to other empires on many continents where isloationism caused them to be absorb, or to go into a form of expansionism either for resources or by accident.

So, I ask again for yours and others opinions, who can we walk the line of not going into isolationism and still resolve this issue?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Fair question, Rich. I hope I can give a fair answer.

A company is different than a foreign goverment. One reason why, governments have much more access to capital and strategic resources that can be used to affect the open market or otherwise influence operations in a way that an independent business cannot do. For example, I'm not crazy about the fact that the German government currently owns a substantial part of our wireless communications network.

Outside of your question. there just seems to be a lot going on that is under our noses. The story originally discussed 6 ports, yet now there is news indicating that there are 21 ports. The President and congress say they don't know, yet Secy Rice says this was vetted for 3 months. The desire for a Free Trade pact with the UAE is going largely unnoticed. Maybe that is just my perception, but I cannot figure it all out.

Lady Kaur,

I wonder, if it was the British Government or the Chinese Government or the Japanese Government if it would be an issue?

As to this topic, I think a topic of Free Trade is at issue, not jsut the ports. While some make it out that the UAE could have acess to get stuff into our countries, while I think the local importer would be a bigger problem, in my opinion.

As to what is going on under our noses. Yes it is really interesting. I am sure we sold Tanks and Plance the KSA (* Kingdom of Saudia Arabia *), as well as Quwait, and possible to the UAE as well. We have trained them on the equipment we have designed for ourselves. This would be more dangerous in my opinion then the ports. But once again that is a security issue, and it seems that this thread is more about Free Trade and what should the USA do about it. Am I wrong?

 

[Carol]

Lady Kaur,

I wonder, if it was the British Government or the Chinese Government or the Japanese Government if it would be an issue?

It's an issue to me personally. I don't support the idea of having a foreign govermnment taking control over part of our infrastructure. I don't like the fact that the governments of China and Singapore control US ports, either.

However, I can't help but draw a paralell to the fact that the UK, Chinese, and Japanese government have not been one of the 3 countries that supported the Taliban regime, nor have they been a country that has been known for harboring funds for terrorists.

As to this topic, I think a topic of Free Trade is at issue, not jsut the ports. While some make it out that the UAE could have acess to get stuff into our countries, while I think the local importer would be a bigger problem, in my opinion.

Interesting. I hadn't considered the trade issue from the angle of the local importers. I don't know enough about the trade situation to have an informed opinion one way or another.

As to what is going on under our noses. Yes it is really interesting. I am sure we sold Tanks and Plance the KSA (* Kingdom of Saudia Arabia *), as well as Quwait, and possible to the UAE as well. We have trained them on the equipment we have designed for ourselves. This would be more dangerous in my opinion then the ports. But once again that is a security issue, and it seems that this thread is more about Free Trade and what should the USA do about it. Am I wrong?

Free Trade seems ensconced to the issue. I first learned about the potential free trade pact with the UAE by reading about it in Asian newspapers. I'm concered as to why this hasn't been discussed much locally....or have I just been spending too much time at the dojo and missed it all? I agree, a separate post on Free Trade would be a great idea. I would love to hear some other folks input on the subject.

But as far as security, yes I see a risk. The UAE is an island nation. Shipping is in their heritage. I have no doubt that they know how to run a port. I also believe that they have largely behaved as allies to the US.

But that is today. I don't think these port contracts last for a few months, or a year or two. I don't think I am being unrealistic in believing tha these will last for decades. My concern is about tomorrow. I see a flashpoint.

Our alliance with the UAE is based on guns and oil. We arm them, they fuel us. Like many of our allies, we do not sell them the best weapons that we can produce. But, we have one ally that does receive the best weapons we can make. That ally is Israel.

I also see an economic risk.

Not long ago, there was a Longshoreman's strike in California. This comparatively minor and absolutely non-terrorism-related disruption still had an impact on our economy.

The terrorists have made it clear that hurting the US economy is one of their goals.

If there was a disruption, any kind of disruption, at one of our ports...my speculation is that a disruption at a port controlled by the UAE govermnent, would have a worse effect on Wall Street than a disruption at a port controlled by a Danish corporation. I hope I'm wrong.

Carol

 

[michaeledward]

So, I ask again for yours and others opinions, who can we walk the line of not going into isolationism and still resolve this issue?

When Toyota cars, built in American, are able to smuggle chemical and biological weapons into a major American city undetected, then domestic production by a foreign company should be halted.

Why is it that I am only present a choice of complete free trade or complete isolationism?

 

[michaeledward]

If your only problem you have with them being foreign, then why did you spefically point out that two of the hijackers come from the U.A.E.? Or everything else about the U.A.E.?

Don, try to read this next quote slowly.

The arguments I raise are being made by politicians of all stripes.

Now, please, read the newspapers. And see who is re-iterating the fact that of the hi-jackers nationality.

 

[Don Roley]

Don, try to read this next quote slowly.

I think I would rather read the original quote instead.

(Edit) Oh, OK ... claiming security is 'non-existant' is a bit too hyperbolic. The United States Coast Guard has stated their security budgeting of 700 million dollars is approximately 1/5th of what is required to actually secure the Ports to a level equivilent with their charter. ..... So, our ports are 20% secure. (End Edit).

But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan, there are some who have concerns.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City - has concerns (Republican)
Former Governor Kean of New Jersey (Chair of 911 Commission - has concerns (Republican)
Representative King of New York - has concerns (Republican)
Speaker of the House Hastert - has concerns (Republican)
Senate Majority Leader Frist - has concerns (Republican)
Representative Fossella of New York - has concerns (Republican)

I do not know if every republican you listed has the same concerns with all four points you posted prior to their names. But even so, if you do not share their view- why raise those concerns about the nationality of two of the hijackers at all?

 

[Rich Parsons]

When Toyota cars, built in American, are able to smuggle chemical and biological weapons into a major American city undetected, then domestic production by a foreign company should be halted.

Let me ask you this. Contact California and ask what percentage of these foreign clean cars get inspected, and how long it takes to get 100 % inspection? Also try to get the normal response from the companies of "Oh we ahve new stuff out that fixes that."

Where as in the old Big three had a much larger inspection rate inthe first year if not with in the first 90 days of production release, and also held to a higher standard. Now that Toyota as you mentioned, is in the Major players in the US, that their Recall rates have increased, and that in teh last few years their JD Power numbers have risen.

And what is to stop someone from Toyota to ship in something that could be dangerous to the US. You see it is about 60% +/- 10% US assembled, which is not parts made by content or cost, just assembled.

Are these not also dangerous concerns?

Why is it that I am only present a choice of complete free trade or complete isolationism?

Michael, I am now assumming that one fo the following is true:

1) You do not wish to answer the question, as I have asked you for your Opinion twice (* Three times if you include this. NOWHERE have I stated you must you must choose, but to give your opinion on how to improve or handle the situation. *)

2) You are just playing games with me, AKA being a troll.

3) You are too ignorant to read what I am saying or too biased to understand that I am nto painting you into a corner. I have opened up the discusison for anything, please present, hence the request for your opinion.

*** Note: Ignmorant is not stupid. I am ignorant of a lot of things and when asked I will admit on those subjects, or not get involved in a conversation on said subjects but I will watch and listen and learn.

So, I am really confused with this approach by you. If it is some other option that I have not considered, then could you also explain what it is when you give me your opinion?

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's an issue to me personally. I don't support the idea of having a foreign govermnment taking control over part of our infrastructure. I don't like the fact that the governments of China and Singapore control US ports, either.

However, I can't help but draw a paralell to the fact that the UK, Chinese, and Japanese government have not been one of the 3 countries that supported the Taliban regime, nor have they been a country that has been known for harboring funds for terrorists.



Interesting. I hadn't considered the trade issue from the angle of the local importers. I don't know enough about the trade situation to have an informed opinion one way or another.



Free Trade seems ensconced to the issue. I first learned about the potential free trade pact with the UAE by reading about it in Asian newspapers. I'm concered as to why this hasn't been discussed much locally....or have I just been spending too much time at the dojo and missed it all? I agree, a separate post on Free Trade would be a great idea. I would love to hear some other folks input on the subject.

But as far as security, yes I see a risk. The UAE is an island nation. Shipping is in their heritage. I have no doubt that they know how to run a port. I also believe that they have largely behaved as allies to the US.

But that is today. I don't think these port contracts last for a few months, or a year or two. I don't think I am being unrealistic in believing tha these will last for decades. My concern is about tomorrow. I see a flashpoint.

Our alliance with the UAE is based on guns and oil. We arm them, they fuel us. Like many of our allies, we do not sell them the best weapons that we can produce. But, we have one ally that does receive the best weapons we can make. That ally is Israel.

I also see an economic risk.

Not long ago, there was a Longshoreman's strike in California. This comparatively minor and absolutely non-terrorism-related disruption still had an impact on our economy.

The terrorists have made it clear that hurting the US economy is one of their goals.

If there was a disruption, any kind of disruption, at one of our ports...my speculation is that a disruption at a port controlled by the UAE govermnent, would have a worse effect on Wall Street than a disruption at a port controlled by a Danish corporation. I hope I'm wrong.

Carol

Lady Kaur,

Since China is in your list, I would be concerned with them more then with UAE. As China is a nuclear power. We have had in the last decade an issue with them and one of our intellignece planes. We have concerns about them and spreading Nuclear technology and or using it in their theater of this planet of spreading to the globe. Where as the UAE are an Islamic country, yes, but they are not a Nuclear Power, nor have they shot down any of our planes.

While your concern about Government invovlement is valid, I would consider it even more so with China. Yet, the Chinese are not the current bad guys, or the people we have been told to fear.

In my above History comments, I mentioned Japan awakening teh Sleeping Giant. Could it be possible that the Western Culture and USA specifically has awaken another Giant, not one of borders, but one of religion and of faith.

If that is the real issue here, then I can see your concerns for one could argue that the Chinese would use logic and reason before using nukes. While a renegade or supported terrorist is a person of faith, and use their own logic, based upon their beliefs. In this case it is hard to predict what a person of this type will react too.

In that case, I say recognize the issue and try to handle it within the public atmosphere, only remember that this now looks like and is hard to argue against it being discriminatory against Muslims. Which could be the topic of a whole new thread in itself, about has our culture gone to far in one direction to try to not offend others?

I am not saying any of your points are wrong, jsut trying to better understand them.

Thanks

 

[michaeledward]

I think I would rather read the original quote instead.

I do not know if every republican you listed has the same concerns with all four points you posted prior to their names. But even so, if you do not share their view- why raise those concerns about the nationality of two of the hijackers at all?

Don ... I did not raise the issue. I indicated (although not clearly enough, apparently), that these are the problems that politicians have with the deal.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/national/main1343339.shtml

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.

"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said. "There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said.

Man, if that is not a high-enough 'higher authority' for you, Don, I don't know what will satisify.

Former Governor Kean was the Chairman of the 911 Commission. The 911 Commission reviewed the country's preparation for Terrorism and made several recommendations. There was a big report. It was a best seller. He is a Republican from New Jersey.


Might I suggest you read "How to Lie with Footnotes" from the Al Franken Book 'Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them'. He scoriates Ann Coulter for ascribing everything printed in a News Paper to the Newspaper --- much like what you are doing to me.

 

[michaeledward]

Let me ask you this. Contact California and ask what percentage of these foreign clean cars get inspected, and how long it takes to get 100 % inspection? Also try to get the normal response from the companies of "Oh we ahve new stuff out that fixes that."

Where as in the old Big three had a much larger inspection rate inthe first year if not with in the first 90 days of production release, and also held to a higher standard. Now that Toyota as you mentioned, is in the Major players in the US, that their Recall rates have increased, and that in teh last few years their JD Power numbers have risen.

And what is to stop someone from Toyota to ship in something that could be dangerous to the US. You see it is about 60% +/- 10% US assembled, which is not parts made by content or cost, just assembled.

Are these not also dangerous concerns?



Michael, I am now assumming that one fo the following is true:

1) You do not wish to answer the question, as I have asked you for your Opinion twice (* Three times if you include this. NOWHERE have I stated you must you must choose, but to give your opinion on how to improve or handle the situation. *)

2) You are just playing games with me, AKA being a troll.

3) You are too ignorant to read what I am saying or too biased to understand that I am nto painting you into a corner. I have opened up the discusison for anything, please present, hence the request for your opinion.

*** Note: Ignmorant is not stupid. I am ignorant of a lot of things and when asked I will admit on those subjects, or not get involved in a conversation on said subjects but I will watch and listen and learn.

So, I am really confused with this approach by you. If it is some other option that I have not considered, then could you also explain what it is when you give me your opinion?

Rich Parsons, I have no idea what you are saying or what argument you are presenting, or what about my answers to your questions is unclear. I am attempting to answer them as clearly as I can, but then you report I am not answering.

I'm sorry to have been unable to sufficiently address your questions in a way that you can understand my reply.

Good luck,

Mike

 

[Brother John]

as being not american, i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future. like financining bin-laden, giving WMD to iraq and other ventures..

maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead, maybe you are right. but things that happened to poor civilians and brave soldiers on homeland and different countries is a lot selfinduced. i dont say its "americans" in general, but the government has done a lot of f***-ups. sometimes it worries me a lot. look at the nuclear war thread. or scholars for 911. maybe thats already BS, but still. torture for freedom? pre-emptive strikes? hey man, get real, if i was hit "pre-emptively" you would have to expect an answer. and if it was planes..

how come the almighty US want to hand over their ports (remember the USS "whatever that name was" <- ignorant european), to the nation that most terrorists from 911 were from. this is weird!.

Dobberman-

as being not american, i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future. like financining bin-laden, giving WMD to iraq and other ventures..

As being American I can tell you that the U.S. government, under this and pretty much all previous administrations, has done things that ended up running counter to our own ideals and best-interest in the long run. As being an American who reads and pays attention to world events, however, I can tell you that we are in NO way alone in these types of mistakes and that we hardly lead the way in these errors. It happens to all countries and governments....because they're all lead by Human beings. We just hope to learn from these things and alter our choices in the future based on previous experience. Failure in these things is NOT an "American" problem, it's a Human problem.
Last I knew, European governments were also lead by Human beings who make mistakes. One issue is, however, being the last remaining superpower, our actions are spot-lighted on the world stage...and because of that power...our mistakes tend to have some pretty strong consequences.

maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead, maybe you are right.

Huh?? I do think you're a European....because you've said so. Ignorant? Maybe. Should I also now think you are a "Dickhead" ...because you've said so?
It doesn't make any sense to get all personal in this. It makes even less sense to use this false self belittlement in trying to make this point. I don't think it's an error in language but in judgement and taste.
IF you are a "dickhead" (not a very mature term)...keep it to yourself.

things that happened to poor civilians and brave soldiers on homeland and different countries is a lot selfinduced.

OK.... the things that happen to brave soldiers is self induced. Come on, employ some logic here. OF COURSE what happens to a soldier is brought about by his and his governments actions. If I sign up for military service (which is very commendable!) then I KNOW that I'm offering to put myself in harms way, to do dangerous work that doesn't just have the chance but the probability of life threatening danger. Fine. Self induced.
But: as an American who lost someone (a poor civilian) who was in the 2nd Tower on 911, I'd LOVE to hear how what she did (go to work, be an American, live responsibly) brought about her terrible death. PLEASE.... elaborate. What did she do to "self-induce" the plane that tore through her floor of the 2nd tower??? HINT: If you say she brougt it on herself, if you can't or won't validate what you said...then

ignorant dickhead

...in my opinion, would only scratch the surface of accuracy!

i dont say its "americans" in general, but the government has done a lot of f***-ups.

Of course you don't. Not "in general". I suppose that Switzerland would do SO much better at everything if THEY had as much power, clout and decision making gravitas as the United States does...right? You've claimed that we'd think you were a dickhead and ignorant.... but you don't judge us...generally....huh??
I will say......you lack congruency.

look at the nuclear war thread.

No.
Tell me what about the 'nuclear war thread' concerns you and applies in this manner. IF you are going to reference something else, then QUOTE it and explain. I'm not going to go do some research just because you're not able to formulate thoughts and make a point with it but just want to try to make a point by saying "Go look here".
No. Make your point...
or don't.

scholars for 911. maybe thats already BS, but still.

Huh??
If it's "BS" then Why apply it here? If it's bunk then it's bunk and doesn't support anything you say...just another thing for you to point at and say "Look here". ...and then when we look there, we'll see "BS"?
..but still.

pre-emptive strikes? hey man, get real, if i was hit "pre-emptively" you would have to expect an answer. and if it was planes..

Pre-emptive strikes are not launched at a person, nor a country, in which they were not themselves giving Every indication that they meant to strike out themselves. That's what makes it "Pre-emptive".... look the word up, it means to prevent them from taking action.
Also: IF you were hit by the United States of America "Preemptively"... then you'd first have things w/in your borders just Blow up....important things, needful things...major roads, bridges, communications, power, air strips....etc.. This would be done by dozens of special forces types that would already be IN your country. Then there'd be laser guided missles, Tommahawks.... powerful missles that'd be fired from hundreds of miles away at sea, hit you in further 'important & needful' places with a lot of destruction...and they'd come in under most radar, and come in too fast to stop. Then there'd be precision bombardment by stealth bombers ((...remember, "if it was planes"... yes.....what if??)) which you could neither detect until too late nor stop (due to their altitude and their speed) and they'd drop precision bombs into places that you really wouldn't want them...places that'd shut you off from any ability to retaliate. All of this would be in JUST the first couple of hours.
Honestly, I don't think you'd be Able to "answer"...not with anything significant or noteworthy.
Luckily... we only strike pretty horrible places/people in such a manner. Not nice people in nice places like your country.... who is an ally of ours.
(Glad to have this "Theoretical" debate though)

NOW: if you are talking Nulclear... then it's a rediculous argument. It's like asking who wants to be obliterated first and who wants to go second. That's why I think that a Nuclear arsenal in the hands of a country that is involved on the world stage (USA, Russia, E.U....etc.) finds it's power in THREAT. But in the hands of a country that does Not care about Global political impact and who has been embroiled in Hundreds of years of war and killing and says that it'd like to obliterate other peoples in other countries when those people have not aggressed on them (I'm thinking of places like Iran) ...then that Threat is to EVERYBODY, and MUST be shut down. IF it needs to be done "Preemptively"....ok. Because to "preempt" means to prevent by taking the initiative. BUT: This would only be done when it is believed that a similar attack (nuclear, in this instance) is immanent.....not 'just because'.

how come the almighty US want to hand over their ports (remember the USS "whatever that name was" <- ignorant european), to the nation that most terrorists from 911 were from. this is weird! i dont know whats going on, but i am sure, it wont be a good thing

"Almighty US"???
no........that's not inflamatory, is it??
The US is not "handing over" ports to anyone. There are independant businesses in the US that are in charge of managing the commerce of those ports. These ports aren't being handed over to "Countries" as you've said, but to other businesses. It is a BUSINESS, and it has NOTHING to do with security. Those in charge of security (The US Coast Guard, the FBI, NSA, Homeland security and US customs) are still JUST AS MUCH in charge of security in these ports....and will stay in charge. That's not changing. Ownership of the "ports" isn't changing. Just who's managing the commerce. Our government is not socialist (though some would like that) and not communist.... commerce is the pervue of the people, not the government. ALSO: the people working at these docks, even for this very company being taken over...IS NOT changing. Only the people who OWN it. The same dock workers... everything.

I will agree with you on ONE thing dobberman, you did get one thing correct.

i dont know whats going on

and I'm not implying you're an "ignorant European", just ignorant. (a state of not knowing, not a put down)
IF you want to say it's because you're European....that's your problem.


Your Brother
John

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich Parsons, I have no idea what you are saying or what argument you are presenting, or what about my answers to your questions is unclear. I am attempting to answer them as clearly as I can, but then you report I am not answering.

I'm sorry to have been unable to sufficiently address your questions in a way that you can understand my reply.

Good luck,

Mike

Mike,


Let me try one more time.

I made some points about Isolationism and Expansionism.

I asked for opinions.

You got upset for me asking Someone and not you specifically, so I addressed your side step, but you have not answered the question. You also made comments that you had an idea that was neither.

I then reasked the question and then you made it sound like I had painted you into a corner with only two options.

I replied that I had not and asked you just to choose, but to give me your opinion on this question and how can you come up wiht some ideas.

You then side stepped again with Ross comments, and quoting some recent political history.

I then replied and made comments about history myself to give the perspective of recent history and made mention that I could go further back if required.

In there I also recognized a point of yours and asked for opinions.


In return I get obfuscation and redirect.

So, I keep asking my question, that you have not even answered indirectly, you have only side stepped.

How would you handle these two isses, and yes I recognize there are other posiibilities, hence my asking for your opinion. At this time I will even accept that you have no idea, only that you think their should be one in theory, even if you have no idea.

I am just looking for a answer, not redirection, not attacking, no smoke and mirrors.

Also if I have missed you answer, then please give me a link or quote it again so I can search on it and see if there is an answer already posted in this thread or even in another thread.

Thank you

 

[Carol]

Lady Kaur,

Since China is in your list, I would be concerned with them more then with UAE. As China is a nuclear power. We have had in the last decade an issue with them and one of our intellignece planes. We have concerns about them and spreading Nuclear technology and or using it in their theater of this planet of spreading to the globe. Where as the UAE are an Islamic country, yes, but they are not a Nuclear Power, nor have they shot down any of our planes.

While your concern about Government invovlement is valid, I would consider it even more so with China. Yet, the Chinese are not the current bad guys, or the people we have been told to fear.

Your concerns about the Chinese government are shared, and your points are well taken. I am very concerned about the PRC over the coming decade, and am not happy with the lack of attention focused on our relations with the PRC and the results thereof.

My points have been directed to the UAE as that is where the current story is. It was not meant to slight any concerns about the PRC...although...such an exploration would be an interesting topic for (yet another) thread.

The UAE is a Muslim state, agreed, but I don't think I brought religion or my own perception of religion towards the ports deal. I think the reasons I stated hold up without taking religion in to account.

In my above History comments, I mentioned Japan awakening teh Sleeping Giant. Could it be possible that the Western Culture and USA specifically has awaken another Giant, not one of borders, but one of religion and of faith.

If that is the real issue here, then I can see your concerns for one could argue that the Chinese would use logic and reason before using nukes. While a renegade or supported terrorist is a person of faith, and use their own logic, based upon their beliefs. In this case it is hard to predict what a person of this type will react too.

In that case, I say recognize the issue and try to handle it within the public atmosphere, only remember that this now looks like and is hard to argue against it being discriminatory against Muslims. Which could be the topic of a whole new thread in itself, about has our culture gone to far in one direction to try to not offend others?

To be honest, I haven't drilled the situation down to an individual level. As my concern about port control is at the state level, my concerns have been at a higher-than-individual level. I hope that makes sense.

My concerns are neither exclusive nor indicative of the Islamic world, at least, the Islamic world that I see from my limited point of view.

The vast majority of Muslim states did NOT support the Taliban. Yet, the UAE was one of only three that did.

The UAE has harbored funds for terrorists and has a mixed record in the fight against terror...or at least, so say some very strong allegations. Other Muslim states have not apparantly done so or not been accused of doing so.

There are Muslim states have full diplomatic ties with our ally, Israel. The UAE does not support Israel, nor have they allowed Israel to make any diplomatic inroads (unlike other non-supporting Muslim states, such as Qatar).

It seems to me that a flashpoint of trouble is our selling of unstrictured arms to a country that is not recognized by the government that is poised to control some of our ports.

This is alone is a picture that makes me question how wise it is for said government to take over part of our infrastructure for an unknown amount of time that probably measures in to the decades.

Coupled with my concern over what President Bush has been saying and not saying about the deal...and that makes me very worried.

Ultimately I am not convinced that having the UAE government control part of our infrastructure is necessarily the best thing for our country in the coming years. I'm listening for a compelling reason for this change...but I haven't heard it yet.

I am not saying any of your points are wrong, jsut trying to better understand them.

Thanks

Thanks to you too.

If no one ever corrected me or disagreed with me, then I would never learn. Discourse is a beautiful thing.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Thanks to you too.

If no one ever corrected me or disagreed with me, then I would never learn. Discourse is a beautiful thing.

Lady Kaur,

I see your points and understand why you posted as you did.

Thanks

 

[Don Roley]

I still do not see why the nationality of two of the hijackers on 9-11 should have been mentioned in this thread. I still say that having people opposing this sale mentioning that fact as a reason is racist and shows the US in a bad light to the world.

The simple facts are that the UAE has been one of our best allies in the region, it is one of the most liberal states in the Arab world and the staff of the company comes mainly from Europe anyway.

Nobody had a problem with a non-American company running our ports until the idea of an Arab country running one came along. After a whole lot of screaming about the UAE, some of the opponents seem to be retreating into a 'all foriegn goverments' stance.

The rest of the world, based on what I read here in Japan, does not seem fooled.

It angers me that sensationalizing media types and Democrats have fanned the flames of xenophobia to increase sales and increase their chances in the next election. I am angered that so many gutless wonders in the Republican party can't find the backbone to tell the truth and instead join in on the talk. They seem to think that they can talk all they want and appease the voters while the president will cover them with a veto if needed. But what they say is being reported overseas. All these folks on both sides of the political isle are being quoted in overseas media and the picture all these statements make is that Americans never will treat Arabs as anything other that terrorists. Not even our best ally in the area.

The International Herald Tribune had this quote,

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the National Govenors Association, said the deal "put a lot of elected officials in an impossible situation. The visceral reaction they got from their constituents left them no choice in opposing it."

Hence my reason for calling the Republicans speaking against this gutless wonders. McCain gets kudos from me for speaking out against people making all these accusations without knowing the full story. I can even imagine a few Democrats might want to do the right thing, but are carried away by the tsunami of xenophobia. But Clinton's attempt to seize more power for the goverment after fanning the flames of bigotry just can't be forgiven.

The company has put off the sale until their is a review. The democrats probably see it as a chance to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the American people and attack the president on the talk shows, the Republican gutless wonders see it as a way of saying they listen to the people and really are concerned with national security and the rest of the world knows that this would never had happend to a European company.