Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests The Dubai Ports World situation

Originally posted by Viss1:

---

You know the story.

Personally, I actually agree with Bush on this. My primary reason for not being against the deal is because I don't see port security changing a bit. I don't believe for a second that a terrorist group couldn't currently smuggle in whatever they wanted to smuggle, so no change there. And I don't see the DPW firing existing workers in exchange for terrorist-friendly Middle Easterners

The only legitimate reason we would have to deny this deal is if DPW has had a mixed security record, or if we had some reason to suspect a large-scale change in personnel and/or security processes. Anything short of that is basically a knee-jerk reaction, which sends a pretty clear message to the moderate Muslims that we consider their whole region untrustworthy. While that may very well be the case, it would pretty much be an admission that we're no longer going to try to win hearts & minds over to our cause.

I know the UAE itself is a mixed bag, but like I said, unless they make wholesale changes through DPW, I don't see any real change.

I also have to say I'm intrigued by how many people are suddenly questioning Bush's attitude towards terrorism based on this situation. Why start questioning his resolve now?

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

The facts:
*2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE
*The money that funded 9/11 was laundered in the UAE
*The UAE have been the closest Arab ali of the US since 9/11
*The banking system in the UAI was reformed since 9/11
*The UAE allowed the US to establish an airbase since 9/11
*Almost 1/3 of US ports are run by foriegn corps/govts
*Nobody complained when Clinton allowed China to take over
management of certain US ports
*The larger Port companies, like the Dutch, did not want to
deal with the longshoreman's union

And most importantly...GTOs RULE!

---

Originally posted by RTStabler51:

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

The facts:
*2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE
*The money that funded 9/11 was laundered in the UAE
*The UAE have been the closest Arab ali of the US since 9/11
*The banking system in the UAI was reformed since 9/11
*The UAE allowed the US to establish an airbase since 9/11
*Almost 1/3 of US ports are run by foriegn corps/govts
*Nobody complained when Clinton allowed China to take over
management of certain US ports
*The larger Port companies, like the Dutch, did not want to
deal with the longshoreman's union

And most importantly...GTOs RULE!

---

Fixed.

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

The facts:
*2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAI
*The money that funded 9/11 was laundered in the UAI
*The UAI have been the closest Arab ali of the US since 9/11
*The banking system in the UAI was reformed since 9/11
*The UAI allowed the US to establish an airbase since 9/11
*Almost 1/3 of US ports are run by foreign corps/govts
*Nobody complained when Clinton allowed China to take over
management of certain US ports
*The larger Port companies, like the Dutch, did not want to
deal with the longshoreman's union

---

Originally posted by RT and his SE:

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

The facts:
*2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAI
*The money that funded 9/11 was laundered in the UAI
*The UAI have been the closest Arab ali of the US since 9/11
*The banking system in the UAI was reformed since 9/11
*The UAI allowed the US to establish an airbase since 9/11
*Almost 1/3 of US ports are run by foreign corps/govts
*Nobody complained when Clinton allowed China to take over
management of certain US ports
*The larger Port companies, like the Dutch, did not want to
deal with the longshoreman's union

---

Two things, name another US port that's owned by a foreign government and the China deal had to do with the Panama canal(not a US port).

Whether you like the deal or not did this administration think this was going to just slide through? This administration may want to start with a smaller test for the UAE's loyalty before handing over a piece this large with so much at risk.

---

I just put out the facts. I stand corrected about China. The Panama Canal is just an insignificant tributary.

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:

---

The ports are not OWNED by a foreign government. Port operations are being administered by a state-run corporation. There are differences.

---

Sounds like word play to me. Sooo who would be ultimately responsible for this "state run corporation"? A governmental body foreign to the United States? Oh I see the difference!

Quote:

---

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

---