FORUM POLL :Is Bush right to give the government of UAE access to our ports?

[MissCatholic]

Are Republicans beginning to understand why the other side finds this administarion so stubborn and secretive. Republicans are very good at winning elections. By using small tiny issues to rape the innocent of whats really best for their families. Its criminal for a husband or wife to vote republican if they earn 40,000 or less but anyway back to the issue..

Bush has lost his mind. The ports sholud not be transferred to a government run organisation who might be our friend today but wont be tomorrow

Bush will veto any attempt to block the deal. So Hillary/Menendez get a bill on the seante floor and Menendez will cruize to re-election.

[MasterJedi]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

[MissCatholic]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

this is a real test for Republicans. If your a fanatic, you will hide under your desk and see where the majority of republicans go. If your country is more important than your party, then you know what the common sense vote is.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No (R)

[J. J.]

Yes (R), provided that there was adequate checking prior to the deal.  I'd say the same thing about the British company.

[MissCatholic]

No (R)

you are a patriot and a decent republican.

[Frodo]

I love how slanted this poll is... 

In any case, Yes (D):

If the main objection to handing control of a port on American soil to a subsidiary of a Arab-owned company is that some terrorists happened to have homes in the parent country of that company, it is worth pointing out that the 9-11 hijackers also made their homes in such western nations like Germany.  Should we therefore bar a German-owned company from operating an American port?

Germany like the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally who happens to have had the misfortune of being the home of some terrorists.  It is not the fault of either country, nor should it cast doubt on their credentials as being trusted allies of the United States.  And to see even a trusted ally like the UAE who have stuck their necks out on our behalf in the war on terrorism being given such rough treatment by us cannot play well in the wider Islamic world, and will be played upon by our enemies who will point out that no matter how loyal an Arab and Muslim government is to the United States, they will never be trusted. 

There are legitimate concerns about giving control of our ports to foreign-owned companies (which we have been doing for years now with hardly a protest from either the right or the left up until this year), but so far all I am seeing is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment played upon by both political parties in an election year.  This is political posturing, pure and simple, and it is irresponsible for either party to whip up anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment just to play on the fears of the populace who don't know any better, at the cost of imperiling our interests overseas. 
 

[MissCatholic]

I love how slanted this poll is... 

In any case, Yes (D):



Germany like the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally who happens to have had the misfortune of being the home of some terrorists. 

the bottom line is that you cant take the risk and this deal takes the risk as they have the misfortune of being a country that produces terrorists.

[Alcon]

I love how slanted this poll is... 

In any case, Yes (D):



Germany like the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally who happens to have had the misfortune of being the home of some terrorists. 

the bottom line is that you cant take the risk and this deal takes the risk as they have the misfortune of being a country that produces terrorists.

What country doesn't produce terrorists?  The litmus test should not be whether a country produces terrorists, but how that country's government handles that terrorism.  I'm not saying the UAE has a good record in either category, but producing terrorists alone is not significant justification.

[MissCatholic]

I love how slanted this poll is... 

In any case, Yes (D):



Germany like the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally who happens to have had the misfortune of being the home of some terrorists. 

the bottom line is that you cant take the risk and this deal takes the risk as they have the misfortune of being a country that produces terrorists.

What country doesn't produce terrorists?  The litmus test should not be whether a country produces terrorists, but how that country's government handles that terrorism.  I'm not saying the UAE has a good record in either category, but producing terrorists alone is not significant justification.

Alot of countries produce terrorists but this a government owned company that has the finances to exploit the ports if we were to become an enemy of UAE.

[Bdub]

No (R)

[© tweed]

No (D)

I wouldn't give the ports to a foreign nation, period.  But the fact that he wants to give it to a middle eastern country with at best, a spotty record, makes it worse.

[Sam Spade]

No. 

However, I frankly believe the whole thing is being quite overblown and that there is a lot of racism combined with the itch to be "strong on national security" on viewing this.

[Ebowed]

No.

[Speed of Sound]

Like Boss Tweed said, I dont see why our ports should be controlled by anyone but ourselves.

No (i)

[MODU]

Yes (I)

The company has already been investigated by muliple US agencies and have determined to be acceptable.  Chicken Little's need to do more homework on the issue before making snap judgements.  Nothing wrong with having the deal reviewed again by a Congressional panel, but I bet in the end they will see that there is no significant risk and the deal will go through.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No (D)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

Most of the funding for 9/11 came from UAE banks. If your party gave one sh**t about actually fighting terrorism, they'd have never appoved this. However, only the Democrats (minus that idiot Joe Lieberman) care about fighting terrorism.

[J. J.]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

Most of the funding for 9/11 came from UAE banks. If your party gave one sh**t about actually fighting terrorism, they'd have never appoved this. However, only the Democrats (minus that idiot Joe Lieberman) care about fighting terrorism.

You mean from (now frozen) accounts at these banks.  I just wrote a check to Lynn Swann.  Does that mean my bank is "supporting" Swann?  He, my bank is in the US.  Does that mean the US is supporting Lynn Swann?

[Colin]

First off I don't think the President gave our ports to the UAE. The company which is owned and headquartered in the UAE bought the ports from a shipping firm called P&O which was recently bought by another firm, I forget which one at the moment.

This acquisition had to be approved by the government, as with all current mergers and acquisitions within the United States. Since these ports have already been sold and, to the best of my knowledge, been approved of by the oversight boards then they have been legally acquired by the buyer corporation.

Now first off your question is a full straw man arguement. I'm not standing up for the President but he didn't give away our ports to the UAE since he never had them in the first place, they were owned, as I said before, by the British shipping firm P&O. Nor did he have any oversight in the approving of the acquisition, since that is the domain of the SEC not the President.

Now getting to the matter at hand I must say that I don't really get what all the fuss is about. Just because two of the highjackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that the company itself is a front for terrorists. If we went by this logic than we should cut off all ties with British companies since the Subway bombers and Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, were card carrying British citizens.

If we are going to make a fuss about giving these rights over to a company based and owned by the UAE why isn't their an uproar concerning Citgo which is wholely owned by the Venezuelan government and is under the direct control of Hugo Chavez, you know the guy who says that we are imperialist capitalist oppresors who are trying to destroy his new socialist revolution.

I'm sorry to say this but not allowing a company to purchase privately owned properties in the United States just because they come from a country with Arab in the name is highly quixotic and arrogant. We have no knowledge that this corporation would not abide by American security standards or that this corporation has any dealings with terrorist organizations or been involved in terrorism in any prior circumstance.

So if a company that has bought American ports has no connections with terrorism, has agreed to abide by the rules and regulations set forth for it, and is accepting all US laws and security protocals in its operation o the ports, why should it not own them? Is it for a real reason or are you so engrossed in what-if statements because the government that owns it has Arab in its name that you forget about thinking it out fully.

Concerning Dubai it is one of the most progressive kingdoms in the Middle East. Their emir has been a staunch supporter of westernization, modernization and liberalization throughout his time as ruler. In 40 years he has taken his small kingdom from a small oasis town made out of mud brick to one of the financial tigers in the world sphere. Dubai has become a Switzerland in the desert, which could explain why there's alot of money laundered through there it is a banking centre, and while its not a democracy the government of the UAE has begun to push through reforms of the government to allow for further democracy in their country, most of these are being pushed by the Emir of Dubai IIRC.

So that's my take on this whole thing you probably wont agree with me and I'm sure that there will be a huge vote in favour of not allowing this deal in Congress but I try to just bring the other side to the table.

[Jake]

Yeah, what Colin said.

[ilikeverin]

I love how slanted this poll is... 

In any case, Yes (D):



Germany like the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally who happens to have had the misfortune of being the home of some terrorists. 

the bottom line is that you cant take the risk and this deal takes the risk as they have the misfortune of being a country that produces terrorists.

Clearly, we should have banned any United States companies from operating our ports after the Oklahoma City bombings. 

Anyway, Yes (D), see Frodo's post.

[Democratic Hawk]

No. Allies or not, Arabs don't like Westerners. How's that for sweeping statement of the day ?

Dave

[Colin]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

Most of the funding for 9/11 came from UAE banks. If your party gave one sh**t about actually fighting terrorism, they'd have never appoved this. However, only the Democrats (minus that idiot Joe Lieberman) care about fighting terrorism.

Alot of funds for terrorists also came from banks in Switzerland and Bermuda. Are you now saying that Switzerland and Bermuda are countries that support terrorism? How about we attack both of them because they're supporting terrorism by keeping certain monies in their banks.

That in and of itself is a stupid arguement. Dubai is THE financial centre of the Arab world. It is were every bank in the region has its headquarters and keeps most of its money. Like I said the fact that Dubai is being used as a haven for money-laundering is following a rule not making it stand out as some terrorist supporting state. As I said before the same type of money flows through banks in such places as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Andorra, and Singapore but yet I doubt that you would have any concern over a company that is headquartered in Zurich taking over the ports in question.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Americans should run American ports.  Not a British company.  And not the government of the UAE.