|
| Thread: Bush set to back the sale of US ports to UAE | |
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
posted February 28, 2006 12:49 AM |
|
|
Bush set to back the sale of US ports to UAE
February 22 2006 (Washington CNN)
President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.
the ports were formerly run by a British company. There has been a huge uproar about it on the Audiogalaxy general discussion board where i spend most forum time now.
The general feeling is that the Bush administration is seriously jeoprdising the countries security and that they have gone stark raving bonkers.
So i just wanted to get the thoughts of Americans here on this.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/
This is just one of many links you can google
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:33 AM |
|
|
The next president will return control of our ports to us. This is simply one of those things that is being ignored by most people because of a common sentiment that Bush gets whatever he wants. He is one of the rarest presidents in our history because he has not vetoed a single bill as of yet. His party has the majority of congress and he seems content to side with their judgment.
This is one of those issues that gets ignored today and becomes a campaign pitch for the next election. It's really very important but a lot of people don't feel like wasting their energy hopelessly opposing this republican epoch.
You'll see . . . come the 08 election this will be a major poit of candidacy.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:51 AM |
|
|
Do you feel ill at ease with it though ? That your country is less safe for the time being. I was kind of expecting to allready see a thread about it being heavily posted in.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:13 AM |
|
|
No Ill Feelings
No. Bush made some sort of under-the-table deal with an unnamed foreign power broker in order to help his plans for Iraq. Iraq is all he cares about and the way he does business is good faith in the wealthiest companies to disseminate their good will upon the less fortunate.
He only has two things that he cares about: Iraq and wealthy business coalitions whom he forms a personal relationship with.
His biggest problem with the ports-deal is that he can't tell the public exactly why he cut the deal. He is the kind of man who wishes he could tell people of his good intentions but then realizes, for security purposes, that it would be unwise and ends up biting his tongue to keep quiet. He isn't as "incompetent" as people are describing him. He is very much aware that he must reduce the number of American soldiers in Iraq or he will be seen as no better than LBJ. (Trust me on this--it's a Texan thing) He knows there is no realistic way of withdrawing our troops in the manner that the public is crying for. Therefore he has chosen to use his ultimate talent in brokering a deal to reduce American investment, expenditure, and troop support. And the only way to have this happen, as I've said before in the Iraq thread, is to somehow get Saudi Arabia more involved in Iraq.
And now we see that he has done exactly that.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted February 28, 2006 02:51 PM |
|
|
Many thanks Consis. It is refreshing to hear a non paranoid point of view.
I would like to post your comments on this other site if its ok with you.
They need to hear an alternative point of view to releive them of their frenzy.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 28, 2006 03:13 PM |
|
|
Sure.
. . . and you should know the frenzy exists here as well. But I've learned to create a healthy filter.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 04, 2006 10:20 PM |
|
|
For once I find myself in large agreement with Bush on something. At least I did initially until learning more of some of the missing security measures here.
On the matter of general principle I agree and have agreed all along with sales of lands and entering economically entwining relationships with foreign governments that might not "live up to" our first-world standards of political and social perfection, because history shows us that the more economically engaged you are with another nation, the less likey they are to become your adversary, and the more likely they are to modernize.
When my conservative mother was receiving all sorts of ultra-right-wing propaganda during the nineties about how Clinton was a Commie hell bent on bringing down the United States by selling land on both sides of the Panama Canal to China, I (and my moderately conservative husband) told her the same thing, for the same reason. Were there/are there human rights issues in China? Yes. Were/are they communist? Yes.
But I will submit to you had holding your breath, as a matter of either political principle or diplimatic strategy, certainly DOES NOT accelerate any kind of reform. Engaging them in the international marketplace, however, does. The populace in China is reforming internally, I will submit largely because of the tide of capitalism (a large part of which is fuelled by their international engagement in the global economy). Whatever you think of capitalism (and I'm not commenting on my personal feeling either way at this point), it does historically have a tendency to stimulate growth toward a freer, more open society than many of the alternatives.
Now on the United Arab Emirates (UAE): I think that the American populace is reacting knee-jerk fashion without really knowing much about the UAE. The average American hears the word "Arab" and they go running in the other direction with their hair on fire. But I have friends who used to live there on a yearly basis, coming back and forth between there and the US. They were business people, millionaires. I have also studied Middle-Eastern history and geography rather extensively for many years (though I may be a bit rusty at the moment).
But from my understanding, the draw of the UAE is multifacted.
1) They are politically removed from the polarized politic in the Middle East. They frankly don't want to have anything to do with it, for the most part either way, despite the pressures of their location and social structure to do so. Let's just say they resist entanglement to a largely successful degree.
2) They are one of the most developed capitalist nations (federation I know) in the ME. Dubai, considered even more the capital of the UAE than Abu Dabi by many, is one of the most modern city-centers in the world.
3) The more ME countries we engage in egalitarian trade relationships with, the more we can improve our relationships in the region and foster a repair of the horrible damage Bush has done to our already suffering image there. (Here I emphasize egalitarian trade relations with countries that do not suppress their populaces or impose fundamentalist values in the social fabric. I'm not talking about buying oil from regimes who ram anti-American hatred down the throats of their youth. Such relationships only foster further hatred among populaces who are suppressed by their governments, and the UAE, in my understanding, is not one of those).
Dubai Port Services (or whatever it's called) already has ports all over the world. It's one of the most prolific, successful shipping businesses of its kind.
Yes, I know. Two of the 9-11 hijackers were from UAE. The shoe bomber was from the United States. Therefore....? Just because somebody is from someplace doesn't tell you a goddammed thing about the place.
Yes, I know. The hijackers passed the Dubai International on their way here. But they passed through Kennedy International too. Therefore.....? See the above point. (Jeese, I'd really like it if folks got over this ridiculous guilt-by-association crap.) The fact is you pretty much always pass through Dubai International, anytime you are going to or coming from anyplace in the Middle East, no matter who you are, where you're going or why you're going there.
Yes, I know. They were one of the few governments to officially recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Was that before or after we'd been funding Bin Laden for a decade, or about the same time? The UAE has also actively, aggressively hunted down, captured and turned over to the US many high-level terrorists since 9-11.
The UAE is also one of the most cooperative nations in the world when it comes to our port scanning security operations. The UAE is interested in making MONEY and the government is very good at it. About the last thing they would allow to happen is to have a security incident at one of their ports ruin the deal. If anything, they're even more motivated to prevent such a thing because of this pre-existing bias over their middle name. The UAE has also reformed its educational system to provide free K - though - College education. And this ain't no Saudi-style smear job on the US or the West, either. While they are a Muslim society, the education system does not preach anti-americanism or anti-Westernism. Instead, it teaches English among its several languages, focuses on a modern criteria to prepare their populace to compete in the global market, and has one of the most active international exchange student programs with the United States in existence.
Now on to the practical complications. I have heard, but have not had the chance to verify, that the deal as it stands actually passes jurisdiction to the UAE. If this is true, then it means the US would not have jurisdiction over an incident, should one occur. That, and some other sticking points I have heard about, may be tactical problems that require some reform of the deal. But that's different than condemning the underlying deal as a whole just because the UAE happens to be located in the ME.
Unfortunately I will probably not be around much in the near future to defend the many comments in my overblown post here in the onslaught that is bound to be forthcoming. But my bottom-line message is: try to be objective about this issue and learn more about it before jumping to any conclusions, either way.
Either way, I submit to you that we could do a whole lot worse than the UAE.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 09, 2006 08:44 PM |
|
|
Interesting . . .
It's over. The ports will stay American-owned.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
