SwiftVets.com

[Schadow]

After listening to all the stürm und drang about it over the last couple of days, I've about concluded that the idea is a good one. The UAE have shown loyalty and support to our efforts in the Middle East and their record of port operations elsewhere is excellent.

We use UAE airports for our operations, mainly for refueling tankers, we enjoy overflight rights, and the geography they occupy would be invaluable in any future operations against Iran, should such become necessary. They seem to be an ally.

They are somewhat of a democracy and to diss them over this would send a discouraging message to other emerging democracies in the region.

What we're experiencing is, of course, political theater at its best (or worst). The White House screwed up big time by not informing the Excellencies in Congress about the deal in a timely manner and should grant a delay while they harrumph and bloviate for a while.

The other side of the argument is well represented by the far-leftie cartoonist, Pat Oliphant. (I can't help it. I admire Oliphant because of his excellent draftmanship although he is invariably on the wrong side of issues.):


Source

Would like to hear your views.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

[LewWaters]

As usual, I think the left is trying to grab hold of something else to enbarrass Bush. They have no ideas, so trashing the current administration is hteir only hope of winning elections.

Initially, I didn't think it was all that great of an idea. Listening around a bit, I leaning more to it's no big deal. Operating the ports isn't like operating the security of them. By accounts, the Navy and Coast Guard remains in charge of security.

Foreign ownership of US businesses isn't really new. We even have options into businesses from overseas countries. But, I think it was Rush who mentioned it, but what is the possibility that in return, we get more access to UAE space and airbases?

If UAE has been allied with us since 9-11 and has cooperated in fighting the war on terror, I just can't see alienating people we are tying to enlist as allies. We ask their help but then say we don't trust them to continue doing what they have been doing all along, simply because they have no bought ownership of the operating company?

As long as the background has been thoroughly checked and safeguards that already need to be implemented are in place, I'd rahter see the uproar over securing our borders where terrorists simply may walk in.

[Stevie]

at first I didn't like it....then after listening to more stuff on Fox, I decided it'd probably be ok....
then today I read that Carter thinks it's ok - now, I'm scared.

Think Bush should rethink it now !

If Carter is for it - I'd be against it.
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged.

[Uisguex Jack]

At first thought I was against it.

After much consideration I am much more strongly against it.
Depending on the wind direction I live about 8 miles from one of the ports.

The crux of my argument is 'tomorrow is another day'.

The head of the UAE may be the best damn guy in the world... today.

Tomorrow what are we to do if he is no longer with us and somehow one of his descendants is now ruling and has a very different view of the U.S.

As for the Democrats, I'm wondering if what has happened is Bush has thrown them a bone. The Democrats have been completely detached from aiding our fight for our mutual survival, in fact they have often worked against the cause.

Maybe, hopefully, what Bush is doing is getting them motivated to get on board so we are all fighting on the same side. Democrats raise a big stink, Bush concedes, no contract, Dems' feel good about themselves for about thirty seconds. All one of Carl Roves master plans (chuckling to myself).

[BuffaloJack]

The deal seems OK. The UAE people only unload the cargo AFTER it has been cleared by both the US Coast Guard and the US Customs. If nothing suspicious was there at that point the incoming stuff is safe. Who cares who unloads it after that? It's already been checked and tested. If suspicious cargo hadn't been found by that point, it would have gotten through no matter who physically unloads the ships.
The only fly in this deal is the MSM who would make a conspiracy out of a decision to change the color of the toilet paper in the Whitehouse jons.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

[Doc Farmer]

I've got no probs with this. 1) I've lived in the ME, and I know that despite the hype from certain politicians, the UAE has been a staunch ally in the war against terrorism since 9/11. 2) I don't blame an entire country for the actions of a few. If that were the case, then why would we continue to buy oil from the Saudis? I saw how they reacted after 9/11 - it wasn't joy or elation they displayed. It was horror, shock and utter revulsion. 3) I'd trust the UAE a hell of a lot faster than I'd ever trust the ChiComs. 4) The UAE is not going to be running security anyway. That'll still be the job of the Coast Guard, the TSA, etc. (On second thought, considering the TSA, maybe I should be a little bit worried - they'd probably try to frisk the cargo containers instead of looking inside the damn things. But then, at least the Coast Guard would be there to keep things safe, thank God!)
_________________

Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It!

[sixdogteam]

GW is between a rock and a hard place--on the one hand he doesn't want to upset an ally who for all we know has gone out on a limb for us, stuff we don't even know about, on the other, it's a stupid move politically. I just hope he doesn't go down in flames on this one. It's a tough call. He needs to not back down, take his defeat on the issue and privately placate the UAE . We are probably better off with more complete control of the ports...
_________________
HHC 212th CAB MMAF RVN '70-'71

[jwb7605]

Since security doesn't change, I view it as a shrewd move.
Make that an attempted shrewd move.

I have absolute faith that Congress will botch it up, and the USA will end up presenting itself to the world as anti-middle east.

<EDIT>
For those living near the ports, think about this:
If (a) you want a lucrative contract (to make money), (b) you're aware that you're distrusted by Americans, and (c) you're also distrusted by "the terrorists" (because you've been cooperating with the USA openly) are you likely to:
(1) be MORE diligent, maybe 'stop' an incident and take credit for it and make (maybe even more) money, or
(2) be LESS diligent, 'allow' an incident, become known as siding with the terrorists, and lose everything if even a 'small' incident happens

Both questions are valid, and answering either way is valid.

Since taking over the ports is being done by a "corporation" who is owned by a government (defined loosely), I think (1) is way more likely. To think otherwise does not explain why the Middle East continues to ensure we (the USA) have sufficient oil flowing into our shores.

[homesteader]

The UAE (fromerly the Trucial States under Great Britain) is a group of cities that until the 1970s were sleepy fishing villages on the Persian Gulf coast surrounded by the eastern end of the Empty Quarter Desert (Al Fujaira is actually outside the Strait of Hormouz.) Independence, oil, isolation and some progressive thinking have turned several of these cities into frontier boom towns, Abu Dhabi and Dubai being the biggest. The UAE is now a free market zone, off-shore banking, and front company haven. Remember BCCI?

One of the most important features of the UAE is that there are very few UAEites (Emiraties). Dubai, the biggest city has a population of less than 1 million, over 60% of these are foreigners imported to do everything. Of the native population a huge percentage is under 20 and half the rest are women. In the summer they all head for the cool hills of Lebanon, Cyprus etc. On the global scene there are not enough Emiraties to be of any signifigance and of those that exist, they are not inclined to do anything involving work. Until very recently their AF consisted mostly of former Commonwealth pilots (Aussie, Kiwi, South African) and the Brit Trucial Guards patrolled the borders for smugglers. All other functions, including public security, are contracted out to foriegners. Westerners (and Lebanese) are the upper managers, Filipinos and Indians are the technicians and Pakistanis, Yemenis, Sri Lankins and Somalis do the grunt work.

Dubai's port management company is just one of the investment ventures that Dubai has undertaken. If anything is to be questioned it would be WHO have they contracted to run the operation for them. In this case they may simply retain the P&O management to carry on. That is usually how they do things. Buy and enterprise and simply change the name plaquard on the door. The fact that it is government owed gives it more legitimacy than if it was a private venture, only registered in the UAE, that could be a front for who knows what. Think of any UAE company as you think when you see a Liberian or Panamanian flagged ship or a Cayman Island trading company.

Misc. thoughts

1. Some of the 9-11 hijackers had UAE connections and funding. The IRA and Sinn Fein received huge amounts of money and some recruits from Irish Americans. SO?

2. The UAE does many things simply because they have the money (indoor ski slopes and ice rinks, fabulous golf courses, sailing regattas, a huge fleet of the newest Boeing Dreamliners, tennis classics, motor racing), all things that interest the natives not at all (and run counter to Islamic traditions) but done for a combination of prestige and smart investing.

3. UAE (Dubai and Abu Dhabi mostly) are much like Las Vegas, a surreal alternate reality (think Eastern European and Asian sex trade). What???? In the Muslim world? They get away with it because they are so isolated and the largest portion of the population is not native, hired for their services and with no interest in spilling the beans. Official pronouncements tow the politically correct Arab and Islamic line but below the surface, there is as much booze as oil. At the cross-roads of Europe, Asia and Africa, with first class travel and lodging facilities, lots of sun and no one watching....anything goes. (My only experience with a topless beach).

I could go on with anicdotes forever but my favorite was from during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran was disputing UAE possesion of some offshore islands and conducted provacative actions attempting to create a pretext to take them. The story was that the UAE finally had enough and declared war on Iran and the Koreans got the contract. That captures the nature of reality out there.

[OKLady]

Some points to consider -

1. The ports are owned by city/county port authorities - a non-federal governmental agency. These port authorities have decided to contract port management to a company. They should have known that the management company had been sold to a British company a few years ago and was in the process of being sold again. I understand that the bidding for the mgt company started in November 2005. If there were any concerns, they should have taken steps to change management companies or hired and operated the ports themselves. The port authorities can still start the process of getting out of the contract.

For those of you who live by ports and if you pay property taxes that go towards county operations, why don't you ask who manages operations and what are their security controls?


2. If the Administration had decided to oppose this sale - what exactly would have happened? Would the sale still go through - do you think that we actually can tell one foreign company that they cannot sell a subsidary to another foreign company? Wasn't it approved by the shareholders? Would we like it if France told us that one of our companies could not sell a subsidiary to another American company?

However, since the transaction still had to be reviewed by the Treasury Department, there may still be some element of the management company being an "american company". Would a law passed in Congress be able to stop this sale? I don't know... and I am not sure exactly where I would find out the information, perhaps in some SEC filings. We do have a bit of a bureaucracy here...

According to the Treasury Dept website, there is also a timeframe for the review and approval process, that was set up via a law. And it seems that the procedures are bottom up - some lower level government types get the required forms, review it and move it up the chain. I am sure this notice of the sale did not first land on Bush's desk and he had to handle it by delegating it down.

But would that mean that the Administration would have to tell the various port authorities that they could not retain their management company for operations and had to change to another company within a short time frame. I am not sure that there are any american companies that do this line of work, so they would be up a creek and a lot stuff would be waiting on ships.


3. Why is no one mentioning other ports on the West Coast? Who manages those ports and what ties do they have with certain governments? Are we not at risk there? I have heard that there are some companies are based in Singpore and China and they manage some of the Pacific ports.


4. How are we going to manage ports - do we take it away from local governments and federalize some ports, all ports? Are we willing to pay for a new department? Gees, all those union longshoremen would be federal employees.....


I think that some people are over reacting on this topic and they did not fully look into the data before shooting off their mouths.

[joeshero]

Is the homebase of Al Jazeera not in the UAE? The Emir and the "government" of UEA may be staunch supporters of US in the war on terror, but hey, what about the folks...and the country's government officials. I don't know in great detail how this will affect security. But to presume or to conclude that this will NOT in anyway affect security is to live in the pre-9/11 mindset. Was 9/11 not due, to a great extent, to a lack of imagination, was it?

Now, what happens if, for some reason, the "government" of Saudi decides to purchase some shares of the company?

For some reasons, I never like those who view and embrace free trade and "globalization" as something like religious dogma. That's the argument from the Wall Street: “what's the beep? This is free trade issue.” Yeah, then why not outsource the security management of nuclear plants to the Chinese or Indians. That would be a lot of cheaper. Or, what why sell the management of airport security to the Saudi. Say TSA is privatized and open for tender. By this logic, it should be okay if the Saudi’s state company wins the tender. And the people who disregard that there is security issue attached to this will argue that the daily operations are still done by the US citizens. Yeah, the daily operations of United Airlines and American Airlines were also done by the US citizens.

This is more or less like the issue of same-sex marriage. Why not legalize polygamy and etc. What is the ending point?

Honestly, I supported President Bush almost 100% in the war on terror. But after studying how Reagan led the West in defeating Communism, I became doubt whether Bush is up to the task in leading the West in defeating the current enemy: Islamofacism. Because the foundation for winning any war or conflict is to know thy enemy and have no double speak about its true nature: cruel, suicidal, deceiving, and to dominate.
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[BuffaloJack]

In view of a report from the Northeast Intelligence Network
titled UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=112

[rparrott21]

I am like most..I want to believe it is a good idea..but I just don't trust Muslims..

[PhantomSgt]

Business is business.


_________________
Retired AF E-8

Independent that leans right of center.

[jwb7605]

I just read this link via Pajamas Media.
To me, it sums up the whole "problem":
http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/02/the_law_of_unin.php