Should Dubai be allowed to Control the Port (poll)

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Well I finally thought it was okay. Until I spoke with an iranian last night who told me this was a big mistake.

[visionary]

Well I finally thought it was okay. Until I spoke with an iranian last night who told me this was a big mistake.

How's President What's His Name doing?

[Burgold]

"Yesterday's friend could be today's enemy. That's how it's always been and that's how it's always going to be. Hussein was a "friend" to the U.S. because it was convienent for us at the time. That's the way the world works.

This statement by you "Our best bet is to strike where ABSOLUTELY necessary, and just play defense" is rather disturbing. Just as disturbing as Bush's port security policy. We need to be on the offensive if we want to truly win the war on terror. And that starts in the Middle East" from Nelms in another thread.

I agree with this sentiment strongly. You have to look at history and also down the road at what may be. Dubai managing the ports just is a very dangerous thing.

[visionary]

"Yesterday's friend could be today's enemy. That's how it's always been and that's how it's always going to be. Hussein was a "friend" to the U.S. because it was convienent for us at the time. That's the way the world works.

This statement by you "Our best bet is to strike where ABSOLUTELY necessary, and just play defense" is rather disturbing. Just as disturbing as Bush's port security policy. We need to be on the offensive if we want to truly win the war on terror. And that starts in the Middle East" from Nelms in another thread.

I agree with this sentiment strongly. You have to look at history and also down the road at what may be. Dubai managing the ports just is a very dangerous thing.

doh, never mind...(I should have read it to the end)

[AbleDanger]

This country was founded and prospered on skepticism coupled with checks and balances. I agree that we should all trust in our government, but that should be tempered by reason, history and evidence. You may be right that the UAE is no enemy now, but that was the reasoning that led us to train, fund, and arm Iraq, Bin Laden, the Taliban, and most of our current enemies. I also question whether there is enough forethought of what could happen down the road.

We once aligned ourselves with the second most prolific mass murderer in history (Stalin) to take down the world's most prolific mass murderer (Hitler). Now why did we do that? We ended up in a cold war with the Russians for several decades.

And FYI...

-We didn't train or arm the Taliban.

-Bin Laden didn't draw all of his education from us, although he was probaby among those "freedom fighters" we trained and supplied to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

-We funded Iraq to balance power in the middle east, which was under threat of being dominated by an Iranian regime hostile towards the U.S. It worked. Saddam became a problem later.

In our history, we have often chosen the lesser of two evils because it was necessary at the time. We can't fight everyone in the middle east all at once.

[AbleDanger]

Well I finally thought it was okay. Until I spoke with an iranian last night who told me this was a big mistake.

And what the hell does he know about it?

[skinfan133]

We once aligned ourselves with the second most prolific mass murderer in history (Stalin) to take down the world's most prolific mass murderer (Hitler). Now why did we do that? We ended up in a cold war with the Russians for several decades.

:doh: stalin was responsible for 21 million more confirmed deaths than hitler. about 36 million on estimants. how is hitler the worst? id say stalin is, plus theres the factor that all the deaths under stalin were not during war and were his own countrymen. both episodes of history were apaling, but to say stalin's regime comes in second is an understatment. the reason we alied with russia was not because we were studip, it like you said lesser of 2 evils. we needed the help of russia in the war and welcomed it, even though they were communist murderers and it was the right descision to this day.

i cant understand from your post whther you say that the cold war was becuase of our alyship with the ussr in wwII, or from WWII?

id say the cold war would have happened anyway.

[AbleDanger]

:doh: stalin was responsible for 21 million more confirmed deaths than hitler. about 36 million on estimants. how is hitler the worst? id say stalin is, plus theres the factor that all the deaths under stalin were not during war and were his own countrymen. both episodes of history were apaling, but to say stalin's regime comes in second is an understatment.

Hitler acheived greater fame for how he did what he did. That is irrelevent to my point though.

the reason we alied with russia was not because we were studip, it like you said lesser of 2 evils. we needed the help of russia in the war and welcomed it, even though they were communist murderers and it was the right descision to this day.

i cant understand from your post whther you say that the cold war was becuase of our alyship with the ussr in wwII, or from WWII?

id say the cold war would have happened anyway.

How is it not clear what I was saying? I was justifying our alliance with Stalin as a necessary evil to defeat Hitler. It was the right decision then, it was the right decision when we supported Iraq against Iran, it was the right decision when we trained and funded "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and it is the right decision now in our alliance with Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Pakistan. We will always be forced to comprimise.

[skinfan133]

Hitler acheived greater fame for how he did what he did. That is irrelevent to my point though.

How is it not clear what I was saying? I was justifying our alliance with Stalin as a necessary evil to defeat Hitler. It was the right decision then, it was the right decision when we supported Iraq against Iran, it was the right decision when we trained and funded "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and it is the right decision now in our alliance with Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Pakistan. We will always be forced to comprimise.

it was clear; i was pointing out some things is all, no need to get all snippy;)

[skinfan133]

ok just as a painful reminder to those who have forgoten of why we do this thing called war, eveyone needs a refresher,

this is why we fight these people, that is why we must continue the course, becuase if we dont we will be anialated

edit: a culture that encourages children to murder is wrong no mater what you all say and should not be tolerated. this is also why we must not allow these people to gain control of our ports

and the greatest reason of all is summed up in this picture. this is very graphic and bring tears to my eyes. for those that dont remeber when this happened these are 3 american marines that were killed, burned to chared flesh and dragged around falluja and then strung up on a bridge. afterwards they were cut dow and dismembered.

this is the ultimate reason why we should not tolerate these savages

[Seabee1973]

So keep the Brit company

They are selling themselves to The UAE Company

[Seabee1973]

God doesnt anyone know? the british controled one port and what you say is the worst is true, the reason Bush is vetoing the congresional action is that the CHINESE have control over most ports and will have control over more if this falls through!

this is not a joke either, im serious the chinese have control over a majority of our trade ports God help our country!

Uh the chinese if i remember correctly do not operate a single port in the US

[Seabee1973]

and the greatest reason of all is summed up in this picture. this is very graphic and bring tears to my eyes. for those that dont remeber when this happened these are 3 american marines that were killed, burned to chared flesh and dragged around falluja and then strung up on a bridge. afterwards they were cut dow and dismembered.

this is the ultimate reason why we should not tolerate these savages

you acvt like the brits are selling thisa company to Al-queda or the taliban

[Crazyhorse1]

Here's a little education for you:

- The UAE port company is owned and controlled by the UAE government.

- This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign government.

- The port authority would be given advance notice of military shipments.

- UAE is the origin of 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and the shoe bomber was born there.

- The government of UAE was the only nation other than Pakistan to support the Taliban.

- The UAE is a travel hub for Bin Laden's operatives.

- The UAE is a hub for drug smuggling and money laundering.

No, please don't continue with the ignorance. Wake the **** up.

I know almost nothing of how port authorities operate, but against this excellent and scary list of facts I have the assurances from Bush and Chertoff that there are no security problems. Let's see. On one hand I have excellent facts that scare me, on the other assurances from two of the more incompetent liars on the planet and a high probability of cronyism-- which will it be?

[AbleDanger]

I know almost nothing of how port authorities operate, but against this excellent and scary list of facts I have the assurances from Bush and Chertoff that there are no security problems. Let's see. On one hand I have excellent facts that scare me, on the other assurances from two of the more incompetent liars on the planet and a high probability of cronyism-- which will it be?

Some of those arn't facts, and some of them are facts irrelevent to the situation. Tell me why American intelligence agencies are not opposed to this deal.

[twa]

I know almost nothing of how port authorities operate, but against this excellent and scary list of facts I have the assurances from Bush and Chertoff that there are no security problems. Let's see. On one hand I have excellent facts that scare me, on the other assurances from two of the more incompetent liars on the planet and a high probability of cronyism-- which will it be?

Here is a simple outline of how it works:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11531152/

"The lowest-paying jobs on the waterfront are security people," said Stephen E. Flynn, a ports expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But is that a problem for foreign ownership? No. It's a problem for everybody."

Shifting ownership from Britain's P&O to Dubai Ports World would not affect those arrangements at the terminals in question, company officials said. Consider, for example, the situation at the Philadelphia port, where Dubai Ports World would obtain 50 percent control over a local outfit that runs one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority.

Robert Palaima, who runs the local company, said yesterday that he hires guards from a union that provides security officers and police guards under a security plan approved by the Coast Guard, which carried out a full-day inspection this week.

Cargo loading and unloading is done by work crews supplied by the International Longshoremen's Association, which Palaima described as "the most patriotic of unions." And there would be no changes in the workforce even if the Dubai Ports World takeover goes through, he said, adding: "I am sick and tired of all this uproar. We're patriots and nothing will change."

[Guest Gichin13]

We once aligned ourselves with the second most prolific mass murderer in history (Stalin) to take down the world's most prolific mass murderer (Hitler).

Don't you have that backwards? I believe Stalin killed over 20 million people during the Great Purges compared to Hitler's measly 6 million Holocaust.

That is just counting massive state sponsored slaughter without calculating extended military conflicts, oppression of uprisings, et c. I think even if you factor those in, Stalin comes out well ahead.

[chomerics]

Some of those arn't facts, and some of them are facts irrelevent to the situation. Tell me why American intelligence agencies are not opposed to this deal.

Do you care to tell which are not facts? They all look factual to me, and you posted nothing other then your opinion saying they are not true. Well, which ones are not?

[AbleDanger]

Do you care to tell which are not facts? They all look factual to me, and you posted nothing other then your opinion saying they are not true. Well, which ones are not?

Originally Posted by RedskinDan0557

Here's a little education for you:

- The UAE port company is owned and controlled by the UAE government.

Okay, fine.

- This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign government.

Which is actually better than a private Dubai company owning it because that would probably be much more uncertain.

- The port authority would be given advance notice of military shipments.

I don't know how we know this to be true (since no source was provided), but if it is, why is it bad? If the risk of tampering exists, would it be better for them to target shipments for commercial vendors instead of military?

- UAE is the origin of 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and the shoe bomber was born there.

Who gives a **** if the Shoe bomber and 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were born there? They could have just as easily been born here. This is a totally irrelevent point. It has no bearing on the cooperation of that government.

- The government of UAE was the only nation other than Pakistan to support the Taliban.

That is not true. Saudi Arabia also recognized the Taliban. Stalin was also a bad guy when we aligned ourselves with him in WWII.

- The UAE is a travel hub for Bin Laden's operatives.

So is the entire middle east.

- The UAE is a hub for drug smuggling and money laundering.

I don't know to what extent this is true, or to what extent the government might be involved (again no sources provided), but we have some of that right in our own country. We still have to comprimise and align ourselves with those who are willing to cooperate. We can't fight the entire world at once.

[AbleDanger]

Don't you have that backwards? I believe Stalin killed over 20 million people during the Great Purges compared to Hitler's measly 6 million Holocaust.

That is just counting massive state sponsored slaughter without calculating extended military conflicts, oppression of uprisings, et c. I think even if you factor those in, Stalin comes out well ahead.

I already addressed that in a prior post.

[Sarge]

As owners, they would have access to all info of the comings and goings of shipments, including military shipments that go through the UAE. While that's one of the risks military takes, I'm not sure sure I'd want tot incur that risk here.

Info in that part of the world seems to find it's way to the wrong people a lot of times. When I was in Jedda (pre Gulf War) I stayed with a Navy friend that lived in a compound. HE had to go to work the next day and told me if, at any time I noticed the Saud guards weren't around and guarding the compound, to just walk into the desert. That was because they knew when places were going to get hit and weren't going to stick around to try to save our asses. They either didn't come to work or went to lunch at the same time.

Several years later, while working at Prince Sultan AB, I noticed that on the days the French Wing commander would come by and look at the flying schedule, our guys would get shot at by the Iraqi's. We got to where we'd tell the Frog the schedule wasn't out yet in the mornings on certain days, and lo and behold no one would get shot at that day.

We pretty much knew it was the Frogs, but because the sauds worked in the facility and had access to the schedule, we couldn't eliminate them either.

There's tons of stuff like that that goes on over there, every day.

For me, it's a matter of trust. And bottom line, I just don't trust anyone over there.

[AbleDanger]

As owners, they would have access to all info of the comings and goings of shipments, including military shipments that go through the UAE. While that's one of the risks military takes, I'm not sure sure I'd want tot incur that risk here.

Info in that part of the world seems to find it's way to the wrong people a lot of times. When I was in Jedda (pre Gulf War) I stayed with a Navy friend that lived in a compound. HE had to go to work the next day and told me if, at any time I noticed the Saud guards weren't around and guarding the compound, to just walk into the desert. That was because they knew when places were going to get hit and weren't going to stick around to try to save our asses. They either didn't come to work or went to lunch at the same time.

Several years later, while working at Prince Sultan AB, I noticed that on the days the French Wing commander would come by and look at the flying schedule, our guys would get shot at by the Iraqi's. We got to where we'd tell the Frog the schedule wasn't out yet in the mornings on certain days, and lo and behold no one would get shot at that day.

We pretty much knew it was the Frogs, but because the sauds worked in the facility and had access to the schedule, we couldn't eliminate them either.

There's tons of stuff like that that goes on over there, every day.

For me, it's a matter of trust. And bottom line, I just don't trust anyone over there.

But its not a matter of trust. It's a matter of "assurances." We have never been more connected as far as terror intelligence is concerned as we are right now. And there is no way the White House and our intelligence agencies would let this go through if it wasn't secure. In fact, it will probably enable us to foil more plots and track more terrorists as a result. It's awfully enticing bait for a terrorist.

[skinfan133]

Uh the chinese if i remember correctly do not operate a single port in the US

your memory would be false chinese companies own many major US ports. they'll be able to defeat us without a second thought someday if this continues.

[DjTj]

your memory would be false chinese companies own many major US ports. they'll be able to defeat us without a second thought someday if this continues.

:doh:

First we really need to get some terminology straight in this thread ... nobody is "owning" any ports. Companies are buying operational rights to certain terminals of certain U.S. ports.

You're right though that a Chinese company operate terminals at several US ports:

http://www.cosco-usa.com/services/services.htm

...clearly part of their plan for world domination . Unfortunately, we're not afraid of the Chinese right now, it's the Arabs that we're worried about.

I think the problem here is one of branding. The China Ocean Shipping Company was smart enough to abbreviate its name to COSCO, thus fooling Americans into thinking that we were selling our ports to a friendly American company that would help us save money by buying in bulk ...

"Dubai Ports World" sounds a little too close to terrorists ... The United Arab Emirates should really change their name to the United America-Friendly Emirates. "Arab" just isn't going to sell in the post-9/11 world.

[dreamingwolf]

Dj your not giving politicians enough credit, if they are gonna drive people into hysteria to reap some national security political clout in an election year they will find the names and make them known in the worst light possible.