My take on this port deal thingie.

[lionkingcmsl]

First of all, personally, I don't think any company that is directly, or indirectly, owned by any foreign government, be it U.A.E., Britain, Canada, Israel, etc., should have any control of the U.S.'s ports.

Our ports should be controlled by U.S. companies, or trusted foreign companies that have no ties, other than regulatory, with any foreign government. This is one way to make sure that our ports stay "our" ports.

As for this particular deal, I do feel it is right that this deal be blocked because of the past history of the U.A.E. and their ties with terrorism.

Is it "Arabphobia", as one Arab Foreign Policy person put it? NO, not this time. It is the U.S. saying, "Now wait a minute. You want to run our ports, but your past history is not too stellar in regards to terrorism."

If the U.A.E. can assure the U.S. that is has distanced itself from terrorism and will take steps to ensure that security remains tight in their hiring practices and screening of cargo, then it should be allowed to go through, though my personal feelings are still against it for the reason mentioned above.

Comments

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

I wasn't really aware that UAE was all that involved in terrorism. They seem to be rather welcoming of Western influence (and money). I remember a lot of Westerners had to clear out when Desert Storm happened, but no terrorism links.

[lowen-kind.livejournal.com]

From what I'm aware, the U.A.E. has recognized the Taliban, only one of three countries to do so, as a "legitimate" government. It was also the staging point of at least one of the 9/11 hi-jackers. It also has allowed money to be laundered, in both directions, in the support of terrorism. Also, it seems, that black market nuclear weapon components have been transported through there, on way to both N. Korea and Iran.

While the official U.A.E. line may not support terrroism, it sure has leaky borders, and their security measures leave a lot to be desired.

These are the issues that the U.S. Congress, and several governors, are concerned about. Once the U.A.E. can assure the U.S. that these problems have been addressed then I believe there would be no problem with the takeover.

[quickcasey.livejournal.com]

Good points, you got there.

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

Ah, I didn't know that. All I knew is that that is where everybody's money is going because that's where the oil guys are congregating.

My father wanted to get a job out there, but my mother wouldn't have it. A few months later a lot of Westerners had to leave in a panic because of the Gulf War (I). My father's cousin works out there for some horse-racing organization. Looks like there's a side to the country that most people don't know about.

[telbert.livejournal.com]

I agree with your initial assessment, Lowen. Our ports should remain just that: OUR ports. Handing control of such a vital aspect of our infrastructure to another nation (ANY other nation)invites trouble. Just ask the people of Hawaii how important shipping is. Whenever the dockworkers go on strike, there are shortages of basic supplies =0P

I have a feeling that the reason that Bush is pushing this so hard is that he cut a deal with someone in the Middle East, and handing our ports to a Middle Eastern company is Bush's way of returning the favor. That might be good for him, but bad for the American people.

email

[(Anonymous)]

Check and respond to your email!

Morgan

The problem is...

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

...not many of our ports are actually owned by the US anymore, just as most of the ships in the world aren't owned by their host countries. You'll find most ships flagged out of Panama, and many others flagged under countries that don't even have a coast!

The other thing is that it doesn't matter who owns the port, they are the complete and total slave to the US Coast Guard when it comes to security. USCG tells them to get on their knees and start slurping, they do it. End of discussion. And where the USCG ends, US Customs begins. And if you thought the USCG could be bastards, wait'll you get tied up with Customs officials!

So the ports could all be owned and operated by Al Quaida for all it matters, because if they so much as fart crosswise, Uncle Sam's Boys will shut them down so fast their heads will fall off.

This is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors tactics trying to divert the attention of the media and the people from other things.

Such as President Hugo Chavez, for example?

During the OPEC Embargo of 73', the US was able to break the embargo because Venezuela broke with OPEC and sold oil to the US at the regular price. Now it looks as though Hugo Chavez won't play nice-nice if the UAE and OPEC decide to try another embargo.

So...how to make sure OPEC and the Arab Nations stay in line and keep dancing our tune?

If you can't bring the oil *in* to the ports, you can't get any money. And if you can't bring in other products, such as consumer goods, then your income shrinks into the negative numbers.

Now then...here's another tidbit...

This story. (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html)

A few years before hostility opened up between the US and Iraq, Iraq decided to accept Euros for their oil. They got stomped. Now, Iran is making noises that it will switch from Dollars to Euros, switching the balance of Petro-Power from the US to the EU. They're about to get stomped too. And right now, it's all looking like it would be a very good idea for OPEC nations to switch from Dollars to Euros, even if only for a short time. In any event, it would be VERY bad for the US.

But see, we can't stomp our "allies", the Saudi's like that, can we? We have to find more subtle, more "politically correct" ways to keep them under a tight leash and keep them straying away from our Dollars to the Euro.
So we put up smoke and mirrors for the world and send "subtle messages" that it's in your best interests to keep doing business Our Way, under Our Terms, with Our Money.

We never had a problem with other countries owning our port facilities until OPEC started eyeballing the Euro.

[skipai.livejournal.com]

Well, most of your ports are owned by Britain anyways :) Berin gave me that one :D So we're going to get pretty much most of the money on that deal on selling them. >:)

Not sure what brought about selling the ports anyways, that one is a bit beyond me, can't figure out how Bush's small pink brain works, you know?

But yeah, anything to do with a country's security and defence should never, ever go to a private company or oversea's for reasons or difficulties later on in the future if you end up at war with said country then things start to break open on the defences.

Don't think it be like that movie. 'A Sum of all our Fears' though with a nuke being slipped through a port into the country.

But anyways, what's wrong with Britain? We did a good job of running the ports so far, haven't we?

Yes, you did!

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

And that's the whole problem! We don't WANT you to sell your ports to Dubai, but you did. We've got George Bush, you've got Tony Blair. Can we pack BOTH of them into a rocket and send em' to the moon?

Re: Yes, you did!

[skipai.livejournal.com]

Suuuure.. As soon as the US reduces tax for Iron etc... And gets a clue on not taking some of our citizens for you know, illegal interrogation by the CIA...

But give me suitable replacements that wouldn't still fuck up things than Bush and Blair and we consider it ;)

I don't think Brown here would do a good job, been too Blair'ed the Labour party here..

Anyways, you always have Jeb Bush to come ;) I don't think it be for a few decades before we see another Blair in charge here. :D

My Thoughts On It~

[light-lion.livejournal.com]

You make a valid point there Lowen Shisho.
I mean, the U.S. ports should be watched over by say oh... THE US perhaps?

Not to sound like a prude, but the US leadership isn't entirely the best due to who's in office. And I'm sure because of that there's going to be at LEAST one major screw up on a biblical scale [as if the war itself wasn't it..] that's going to cause someone who would have controlled a US port to not think too highly of it and have "something slip" if you get what I mean.

Terrorism aside, it's more about trust in this situation. And our political situation isn't exactly doing a lot in order to maintain it, thus giving another reason why this shouldn't happen.