US port operations to be sold to UAE company

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think that recognition of the Taliban is a "so what?" issue. Besides the obvious fact that the Taliban regime allowed terrorism to flourish, Afghani women suffered immeasurably under their power. Women died from medical problems that even in an underdeveloped country should not be life-threatening, because women could not see male doctors without a chaperone and women were no longer allowed to be doctors themselves. If a woman had no male relatives, no doctor. Women starved to death if they had no family because they could not work. An adult woman's grade-school age son had far more political power than she did. And even now, teachers who dare to teach Afghani girls how to read and write are killed because of it.

Support of the Taliban is not a "so what?" issue. And even if the Dubai company is, as Rahma suggested, acting in the role of a glorified baggage handler, I don't like the message it sends to contract with this company: support terrorism and human rights abuses, win major contract. No.

Well said.

Support of the Taliban regime should have turned Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE into pariah regimes. The fact that it did not speaks volumes for how much the world truly cares about women.

If any regime anywhere did the same to Muslim or Jewish men... God help them. Do it to women, Muslim or otherwise, and you go scot free.

[Carol&Marc 0]

This deal will go through. There's much ado and hysteria bantered about over the supposed risks because this deal involves an arabic country.

The authorizing agency approved this deal because there is in essence little or no risk.

This is just another example of a few elected officials shooting their collective mouth's off without doing the research to back up what they say.

The UAE is one of the strongest allies, if not the strongest in the region. We (the US) stage our U2 flights from their airbase in the UAE outside of Abu Dhabi. We also sell them F16's and other sophisticated military hardware.

They shun terrorist organizations and openly pursue them, and subsequently jail them if necessary. Their principal military threat in the region is none other than IRAN and they train for the eventuality of an attack.

They are an affluent country; one that spreads the wealth to the population and subsequently their citizens enjoy a very high standard of living. They are not a draconian muslim society intolerant of all other religions but rather a mosaic of faiths.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed by this over the top hysteria coming from a few of our elected officials as a result of their own ignorance. Most don't know anything about this country other than it's arabic.

In the past 4 years I have lived there on and off. I have made many friends in their military, particularly the UAAF and I'm sure they're looking in on this whole debacle dismayed by what's being said.

It's absurd to think that just because the company, based in Dubai, is somehow in close proximity to arabic people that they are automatically suspect

Sure, let's hand the military off to the Saudis while we're at it...

Sure, let's hand the military off to the Saudis while we're at it...

What he hell do the Saudi's have to do with this discussion? Like I said the amount of ignorance involved in this issue is embarrassing.....

Part of the reason other countries buy our sophisticated military hardware (like F-16s) is they are guaranteed business deals in our country (like running some of our busiest ports).

That's called diplomacy.

Really? And you are privy to such information? Dude, they're not able to buy unless they can qualify to buy such weapons...

Ignorance abound in this thread...

Giving it time to know more on the subject,The U.A.E have been awsome allies in the war on terror, who would be better at getting info. on any attacks? I dont think they will be the sole ppl responsible for seeing what comes in too the country,you can bet they will be screening the hell out of every person working for this company!

[Sister Fracas 5]

After 9/11, Bush used this scare tactic into justifying war with Iraq. At one point, HALF of Americans believed that the 9/11 pilots were FROM Iraq. This administration did everything it could to make as many people it could "on alert" and suspicious of anyone one with brown skin and a beard. Does anyone remember the four Middle Eastern men in a diner down south one night, one of whom had the AUDACITY to utter the phrase "How much do you think it will take to bring it down"? Sure, they were talking about transporting a car from up north to Florida, where they were heading to complete there medical school, but who cares? The waitress, who obviously was up on her Bush-administration rhetoric, called the police and told them all about the brown skinned men who were discussing how much dynamite it would take to blow up a building. If I recall, she was hailed as a hero ( or "patriot" in what has become the biggest misuse of the true meaning of a word I can remember) by many.

Well, now we have this port deal. While it may be "no big deal" as the administration is wanting us to believe, it goes against everything we have heard from them, either directly or implied, for years. Now all of a sudden, we are supposed to blindly believe that these brown skinned men with beards that we were encouraged to treat with suspicion are our "friends". This puts certain Rep. congresspeople in a tough bind, seeing as they took this fear mentality back to their constituents as justification for their support of the war. They continued the villification of the brown skinned men with beards. Bush doesn't have a re-election in 9 months; many of them do.

Excellent points!!

[Scott & Lai 12]

Why is it so important that this deal be rammed through, anyway? Shouldn't the American citizens have some say in the matter?

[almaty 19]

After 9/11, Bush used this scare tactic into justifying war with Iraq. At one point, HALF of Americans believed that the 9/11 pilots were FROM Iraq. This administration did everything it could to make as many people it could "on alert" and suspicious of anyone one with brown skin and a beard. Does anyone remember the four Middle Eastern men in a diner down south one night, one of whom had the AUDACITY to utter the phrase "How much do you think it will take to bring it down"? Sure, they were talking about transporting a car from up north to Florida, where they were heading to complete there medical school, but who cares? The waitress, who obviously was up on her Bush-administration rhetoric, called the police and told them all about the brown skinned men who were discussing how much dynamite it would take to blow up a building. If I recall, she was hailed as a hero ( or "patriot" in what has become the biggest misuse of the true meaning of a word I can remember) by many.

Well, now we have this port deal. While it may be "no big deal" as the administration is wanting us to believe, it goes against everything we have heard from them, either directly or implied, for years. Now all of a sudden, we are supposed to blindly believe that these brown skinned men with beards that we were encouraged to treat with suspicion are our "friends". This puts certain Rep. congresspeople in a tough bind, seeing as they took this fear mentality back to their constituents as justification for their support of the war. They continued the villification of the brown skinned men with beards. Bush doesn't have a re-election in 9 months; many of them do.

Excellent points!!

i agree.bush has cried wolf over terrorism, mainly islamic..and now makes a deal with the UAE..i think he is a chopf##k and this proves it

[pax 0]

Awwww, it's no big deal...he didn't even know! After all, how could he be expected to know? He's only the f%!$ing President!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why is it so important that this deal be rammed through, anyway? Shouldn't the American citizens have some say in the matter?

I think that's all folks in Congress are asking for. Careful review and consideration. Some transparency. Just something other the tired old "just trust us" ####### from this administration. Both sides of the aisle in Congress are rightfully getting weary of the administration's assertion that it is accountable to noone but itself. It's about time that Congress steps up to the plate and draws the line.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Awwww, it's no big deal...he didn't even know! After all, how could he be expected to know? He's only the f%!$ing President!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

And yet he nominates former Director of Ship Operations for Dubai Ports International as Administrator of Maritime Administration

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3212

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, right...he didn't know.

[junglee069 0]

I don't think that recognition of the Taliban is a "so what?" issue. Besides the obvious fact that the Taliban regime allowed terrorism to flourish, Afghani women suffered immeasurably under their power. Women died from medical problems that even in an underdeveloped country should not be life-threatening, because women could not see male doctors without a chaperone and women were no longer allowed to be doctors themselves. If a woman had no male relatives, no doctor. Women starved to death if they had no family because they could not work. An adult woman's grade-school age son had far more political power than she did. And even now, teachers who dare to teach Afghani girls how to read and write are killed because of it.

Support of the Taliban is not a "so what?" issue. And even if the Dubai company is, as Rahma suggested, acting in the role of a glorified baggage handler, I don't like the message it sends to contract with this company: support terrorism and human rights abuses, win major contract. No.

recognition of the taliban regime was in a pre-9/11 world. at a time when the AMERICANS were even contemplating some dealings with the taliban - at a time when taliban representatives had come to the united states (houston in specific) in regards to some pipeline deals.

the taliban regime was taken out for supporting the TERRORIST organization al-qaeda - the taliban and al-qaeda are not interchangeable terms. they are two seperate entities - yet did have a strong working relationship. the refusal of the taliban governments cooperation in regards to handing over al-qaeda is what lead to our invasion of afghanistan. don't get me wrong - i'm not supporting the taliban - what i am laying out are the facts of WHY we went into afghanistan - why we took out the taliban. we didn't take out the taliban because they were oppressive - because they didn't grant women their rights - we took them out because they were housing and aiding al-qaeda, and refusing to cooperate in the capture of al-qaeda. the three countries which had acknowledged the taliban regime prior to 9/11 - saudi arabia, uae, and pakistan - all played key roles in our war on terror, and our continued operations in both iraq and afghanistan.

[pax 0]

recognition of the taliban regime was in a pre-9/11 world. at a time when the AMERICANS were even contemplating some dealings with the taliban - at a time when taliban representatives had come to the united states (houston in specific) in regards to some pipeline deals.

the taliban regime was taken out for supporting the TERRORIST organization al-qaeda - the taliban and al-qaeda are not interchangeable terms. they are two seperate entities - yet did have a strong working relationship. the refusal of the taliban governments cooperation in regards to handing over al-qaeda is what lead to our invasion of afghanistan. don't get me wrong - i'm not supporting the taliban - what i am laying out are the facts of WHY we went into afghanistan - why we took out the taliban. we didn't take out the taliban because they were oppressive - because they didn't grant women their rights - we took them out because they were housing and aiding al-qaeda, and refusing to cooperate in the capture of al-qaeda. the three countries which had acknowledged the taliban regime prior to 9/11 - saudi arabia, uae, and pakistan - all played key roles in our war on terror, and our continued operations in both iraq and afghanistan.

I understand all of that. But I'm not quite sure what any of it has to do with our current discussion. Your post, I think, assumes that I would have been okay with any potential business deal with the Taliban on the part of the United States, which I wouldn't have. It also assumes that the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan suddenly had a change of heart after 9/11 and decided that helping to protect America was in their best interests, which I don't think they did.

I'm not at all anti-Arab or anti-Muslim. But I'm suspicious of any major business deal quietly rammed through without even the President's knowledge. If letting Dubai Ports World manage these port operations really will be a good thing and won't compromise security in any way, why the fear of taking some time to thoroughly examine and discuss the details?