US port operations to be sold to UAE company

[I'm Gone 60]

I'm not exactly sure what this company's function will be, but from hearing people that work at the Baltimore port call in today to the radio talk show I listen to it doesn't seem to be anything to worry about.

If nothing else it was a dumb move politically to pick a company from an Arab country for this job. The people that work for Bush have to be brain dead to not know this was going to happen. They seem good at providing the stick for people to beat them over the head.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1161466,00.html

"In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them."

[junglee069 0]

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.....

wow, the amount of ignorance that i've had to watch spewing from the news pundits, tv show host, and politicians is astounding. the stink alone is enough to make someone sick. you'd think the united arab emirates is the next afghanistan and iraq combined, crawling with al-qaeda henchmen who've concoted some elaborate scheme to buy up security to our ports and inflitrate them.......

does anyone here even know where UAE is? UAE, specifcally Dubai is the new rome of tomorrow - it will the capitol of the eastern hemisphere - the amount of business power and wealth they yeild is unimaginable. they pose NO terrorist threat. if they do - prove it. give me one stinkin instance of where the UAE is any different than ....lets say spain. if spain had won the contract - no one would be griping. infact, if we don't do business with them, its OUR loss, not theirs! hard to believe, ain't it...

oddly enough - the other day, i even heard some congressman or politician stating that this is a country that wanted israel wiped off the map - how freakin IGNORANT - if this publicly elected individual new his head from his a$$, he'd know that the UAE has had talks with israel in regards to developing mutual business ties and opening somewhat of an israeli business liason office (similar to an embassy but not really) in dubai, and having a representative in israel - it is the MOST FORWARD THINKING arab nation, and you are about to ostrasize it.......what type of example does that leave for OTHER arab nations willing to move forward ?? why should they attempt to change at all if they are treated the way UAE is being treated?

ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. the paranoi of fear is so rampant, it makes war of the worlds look tame.

[cmartyn 0]

Get real dude, Bill Gates personal wealth is half their GDP..

Anyways, Yeah, I dont really see how this makes us less secure. But from an economic perspective, why is this outsourced? Are we not trying to reduce our trade defecit? Does Wal-Mart really need a cheaper way to get Chinese trinkets into the country? Perhaps..

[slim 1,514]

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.

[ceriserose 1]

Prior to coming here I was seriously contemplating a job in Dubai. Good money, high technological area, lots of Western companies putting stakes in.

I'm kind of glad I didn't...I'd have missed my sweetie. Although I somehow doubt I'd have been there long without him showing up.

[kaydee457 13]

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...

Edited February 22, 2006 by kaydee457

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.....

Well, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have rather close ties to 9/11.

Some facts about the UAE:

• The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
  
• The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
  
• According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
  
• After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
  

Or take this from the notoriously leftist Business Week:

In the three days preceding September 11, four separate payments were sent to the United Arab Emirates by the alleged hijackers. All four were made through Western Union Financial Services Inc. agents in the U.S., according to law enforcement officials.

On Sept. 8 and 9, Mohamed Atta, who the FBI says was on American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the World Trade Center, wired a total of $4,000 from two Maryland locations to Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed, a top official in Osama bin Laden's organization--apparently returning excess funds. On Sept. 9, Waleed M. Alsheri, who was also on Flight 11, sent $5,000 to Ahmed from Boston's Logan International Airport. And on Sept. 10, Marwan Al Shehhi, who was on United Airlines Flight 175, sent $5,400 to him. A year ago, the suspected hijackers received money by at least two other transfers through Western Union, government officials said.

It is unclear whether Western Union realized the significance of the transactions until the FBI began its investigations. But money-laundering experts say transfers totaling nearly $15,000 to one person over three days is a red flag. "Anything over $4,000, within one month alone, should get flagged," says Jorge Guerrero, president of the National Money Transmitters Assn. trade group. Western Union would not comment on the transfers or whether they had triggered an internal investigation, but said it is cooperating fully with the government. "Unless an individual winds up on a list, we're not going to be able to stop those transactions," says spokesman David Banks.

The pre-September 11 payments aren't Western Union's only encounters with suspected terrorists. At least one of its 50 UAE agents operates out of an al Baraka Exchange storefront. The Treasury Dept.'s Office of Foreign Assets Control has identified al Baraka as part of the al Barakaat network of banks and companies, which it charges is involved in raising and moving funds for al Qaeda.

Your inability and/or unwillingness to ever critically consider anything this administration does is what's embarrassing. How dare anyone question the emperor?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.....

Well, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have rather close ties to 9/11.

Some facts about the UAE:

• The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
  
• The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
  
• According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
  
• After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
  

Or take this from the notoriously leftist Business Week:

In the three days preceding September 11, four separate payments were sent to the United Arab Emirates by the alleged hijackers. All four were made through Western Union Financial Services Inc. agents in the U.S., according to law enforcement officials.

On Sept. 8 and 9, Mohamed Atta, who the FBI says was on American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the World Trade Center, wired a total of $4,000 from two Maryland locations to Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed, a top official in Osama bin Laden's organization--apparently returning excess funds. On Sept. 9, Waleed M. Alsheri, who was also on Flight 11, sent $5,000 to Ahmed from Boston's Logan International Airport. And on Sept. 10, Marwan Al Shehhi, who was on United Airlines Flight 175, sent $5,400 to him. A year ago, the suspected hijackers received money by at least two other transfers through Western Union, government officials said.

It is unclear whether Western Union realized the significance of the transactions until the FBI began its investigations. But money-laundering experts say transfers totaling nearly $15,000 to one person over three days is a red flag. "Anything over $4,000, within one month alone, should get flagged," says Jorge Guerrero, president of the National Money Transmitters Assn. trade group. Western Union would not comment on the transfers or whether they had triggered an internal investigation, but said it is cooperating fully with the government. "Unless an individual winds up on a list, we're not going to be able to stop those transactions," says spokesman David Banks.

The pre-September 11 payments aren't Western Union's only encounters with suspected terrorists. At least one of its 50 UAE agents operates out of an al Baraka Exchange storefront. The Treasury Dept.'s Office of Foreign Assets Control has identified al Baraka as part of the al Barakaat network of banks and companies, which it charges is involved in raising and moving funds for al Qaeda.

Your inability and/or unwillingness to ever critically consider anything this administration does is what's embarrassing. How dare anyone question the emperor?

And yet the Bush administration have taken precisely no action towards Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that a number of the 9/11 hijackers had some pretty strong links to that country.

Why haven't we done anything about this? Because GWB et al clearly value the economic relationship with Saudi Arabia above concerns about national security and terrorism. Instead we invaded a country that had no links to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, all the while the Saudis are bankrolling groups such as Al Qaeda. Clearly we have a selective memory when it comes to terrorism.

In any case, this deal (to me) looks rather like the business equivalent of racial profiling. That said, I'm sure there is more going on there than the fact that the Bush administration is concerned over the UAE's links to terrorism.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Fishdude

[JAYKE 0]

ET, as usual, I couldn't agree with you more.

It seems as if this administration's strongest tactic has just come to bite them in the butt. For years, this administration has used the "scare em" tactic to keep their base, so to speak. There were studies done prior to the last election, in which college students were asked who they preferred, Bush or Kerry. Those who answered the survey based on news clips of economy, etc., largely favored Kerry. The group that were showed news clips of bombings, terrorists being found in US, etc., favored Bush. Note that NONE of the news clips featured either candidate.

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.

Anyway, you reap what you sow, I guess. Will be fun watching this new round of finger-pointing.

[kaydee457 13]

Some facts about the UAE:

The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

So what? Do they do so now? Who/whom were the other two?

The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

Once again, the significance? And if this is so, were the transfers condoned by the government? I'm sure the same can be said for many other places in the world such as Germany concerning the transfer of critical technology to IRAN and others.

According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

As for "moving money through their banking system"; what's the problem here. They have a very open system that not intrusive as in other countries. Why is this suspect?

Why should they cooperate? Just because we, the americans, want to delve into the private accounts of foreigners doesn't mean that they have to jump through hoops to comply.

Just another testament to their willingness to moderate any intrusions on their populace. They have since adopted a more cooperative policy.

This hysterical stance over this issue further cast doubt on whether or not the dem's will ever recover any significant control in this country in the near future. They seem only want to be anti-Bush on any issue regardless of how ignorant they are concerning the facts.

We have no stronger military ally in the middle east. This is a sound deal and it will indeed go through.

Edited February 22, 2006 by kaydee457

[UmmSqueakster 54]

Mark this day, it is a momentous occasion. it is the first time I have ever agreed with Bush and Co.

On NPR this morning, they sent one of their correspondents down to the NJ port. For a container to get in the country, it has to go through AMERICAN clerks, AMERICAN cost guard, and AMERICAN customs agents. The UAE company is basically a glorified luggage handler. And, even the cargo handlers are mostly american.

I think this is the clip, but am not sure, since I haven't hooked up the sound on my computer here yet.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227729

I'm just sitting here chuckling to myself, because perhaps now americans can understand why some citizens of other countries are so pissed off that the US operates military bases on their soil of their sovereign country. Heck, operating the transfer of cargo of ships is nothing compared to a foreign military operating on your soil.

Edited February 22, 2006 by rahma

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This hysterical stance over this issue further cast doubt on whether or not the dem's will ever recover any significant control in this country in the near future.

Ehm, in case you haven't noticed just yet: There are about as many concerned Republicans as Democrats. It's not a partisan issue. It's a common sense one...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some facts about the UAE:

The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

So what? Do they do so now? Who/whom were the other two?

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Two more "allies".

[pax 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.

[TracyTN 237]

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.....

I thought the emote indicated he was making a sarcastic comparison.