Relying on Middle East Country to Keep Our Ports Safe Doesn't Make Sense

Houston Chronicle ^ | 02/21/2006 | Staff

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

PRESIDENT Bush wishes to allow the United Arab Emirates to buy a British company that operates six major U.S. seaports. Returning to Washington from Colorado, President Bush told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One, "I want those who are questioning it to explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

Let us count the reasons.

First, the United Arab Emirates is not being held to a different standard. The British company was privately owned; now it's owned by a shadowy government of a Middle Eastern country that provided some of the 9/11 attackers.

Bush said the UAE has been an ally in the war against terror and has played by the rules. But has it? Some of its financial institutions have been linked to terrorist funding, and its ports are suspected of enabling nuclear proliferation, transshipping nuclear components from Pakistan to North Korea, Iran and Libya.

Saudi Arabia also is an ally in the war on terror. Yet it produced Osama bin Laden and supplied most of the 9/11 attackers. Wealthy Saudi merchants and princes finance the Islamist movement from which spring the terrorists of tomorrow.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert both want Bush to suspend the port deal until further review. The Republican governors of Maryland and New York oppose the arrangement and refuse to go along with it.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that the U.S. Coast Guard would remain in charge of port security. But the Coast Guard can examine only a tiny percentage of the vessels and cargo entering U.S. ports, leaving them vulnerable to an inside job.

The government of the United Arab Emirates simply isn't the same as private British company ownership. Letting the UAE buy a company running shipping operations in Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia might turn out all right, but why take the chance?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ping

[Squint]

The author of the article seems to have not done his homework. See this article.

[Siena Dreaming]

If Dubai cannot be considered an ally, then what Middle Eastern or Islamic country can?

All Muslim countries will have some kind of terror ties. By such standards even the US played a part since the 9/11 attackers actually learned how to fly the planes here.

It's essential to nurture our Middle Eastern allies while the WOT is conducted. President Bush will have an impossible job if all Middle Eastern countries are alienated.

[Echo Talon]

are arent relyng on them to keep our ports safe! We are relying on Homeland Security, US Customs, and the Coast Guard to keep our ports safe! WTF!

[advance_copy]

To be completely honest, I know jack diddly about ports and containers and shipping. Still, I don't worry very much about bin Laden's minions hijacking cranes and smashing them into buildings. Aren't the cranes at ports bolted down? And, if you are sitting the crane, it seems like it would be pretty hard to smuggle something on to the ship. It's not like the guy running the crane is the guy who puts the stuff in the container. Shouldn't we be more worried about the cranes that load the ships instead of the ones unloading them? Once the stuff is in the container, and the ship has sailed to the destination, and the ship has been allowed into the port, it just seems a little late to be worried about who unloads it. Well, that's how I see it. But what do I know?

[themank]

Wake up people! Is there any real difference between turning the ports over to a company from Dubai and turning the western wilderness lands over to the multi-national timber and gas companies? Really, would we want the Russians running the US ports instead?? What if the company from Dubai were clear-cutting and strip mining our wild lands that have always been American treasures? This is what the 'left' complains about when they complain about globalization.

If I twist my tin foil hat ever so slightly I see the Chinese allowing the Waltons to keep their name on Walmart because they are smart enough to know that having a Chinese name on the store would be bad for business.

Face it, twisting arms in other countries so that they open their natural resources to our corporations means we have to open ourselves to the same beast.

Watch out, because the next time you look up a Japanese/Korean fishing fleet will be busy cleaning out our offshore fishing grounds, and the Indians will be dismantling our computer industry (and the Arabs will be running our ports). ---Oops, too late or all three counts.

And Bush won't even understand why you are concerned. Face it, he's not a conservative and this is not about profiling Arabs.

[Alia]

Face it, he's [President Bush] not a conservative

Baloney. This is a standard foreign direct investment which is a standard operation resulting in increased GDP. By your own standards, no one should ever be talking to a Democrat in the US and because of the corrupt antics of Hillary and Her husband, either.

And by your own standards, the US should never do business with any Mexican company, and because of illegal immigration?

This "by extension" stuff gets a bit much, yeknew.. Isolationist policies stifle liberties and economic equilibrium.

[themank]

Just because Bush calls himself a conservative doesn't mean he shares my view of the world. I don't need a loyalty test, I'd just like some plain common sense. It's main street values I'm after, not those of a Houston Country Club. Yes a few boats will rise on a sea of global prosperity (no pun intended) as we sell the ports and the forests and main streets to foreign corporations or multi-nationals. It's just that the new owners will not have our national interests at the top of their agenda. I don't mind a Mexican company opening a chain of fried chicken restaurants or a French company making candy to sell in the grocery store. That is a different issue. I'm talking about divesting our natural resources and national jewels to people whose loyalty is not to the United States.

[yoe]

Anytime; ANYTIME Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton place themselves as the end all know all about something like this, BEWARE! Holding up the transfer of ownership of the company for a little more inspection is warranted but denying it is not! Too many Democrats with a sudden knee jerk reaction about protecting the United States doesn't pass the smell test.

[Earthdweller]

"Too many Democrats with a sudden knee jerk reaction about protecting the United States doesn't pass the smell test."

Exactly

..and this bunch posting these half baked articles are the same bunch that crawled in out of nowhere the last time the base was slit on an issue. That smells fishy to me as well.

[mware]

Thye are not in charge of security. Do your homework.

[presidio9]

Relying on Middle East Country to Keep Our Ports Safe Doesn't Make Sense

I agree. If President Bush turns control of our Coast Guard and US Customs agents over to Hamas I'm going to scream bloody murder.

[Democratshavenobrains]

So do we have to pass a law that says no friendly foreign owned company with property in the United States can sell to an unfriendly foreign owned company? Because that is what it sounds like people want us to do. I didn't even know a President could deny the UAE company the assets it legally aquired even if they are in the U.S.

[DJ MacWoW]

Oh yeah! See-BS is now truthful. I've been getting facts from Gulf Port news and Khaleej Times on Dubai. Even from IRNA-Iran.

[DJ MacWoW]

By such standards even the US played a part since the 9/11 attackers actually learned how to fly the planes here.

The muslims were framed? It was AMERICANS? OMG! OMG! /sarc

Your statement is a head-shaker.

[TXBSAFH]

This is like asking El Presidente Fox for help with border security. Oh wait Jorge Arbusto has done that as well. I guess GW does nto care about US security as long as there is money to be had.

[John Lenin]

Just the opposite. It makes sense because they have better intelligence on Arab radicals than even Israel does. Let's not let the facts get in the way.

[DJ MacWoW]

This "by extension" stuff gets a bit much, yeknew.

Tentacles are dangerous.

Iran-UAE-Trade

Iran and UAE explored here Wednesday ways of expanding bilateral trade relations.

Iranian Commercial attache in UAE Qassem Mirzaie told IRNA that the meeting focused on expansion of trade ties between Iran's Mazandaran province and Dubai.

The meeting was attended by over 50 private and public officials of the Mazandaran province who discussed removing hurdles in expansion of investments and trade relations.

TNT to unveil UAE-Iran road transport service

Dubai: TNT Express, the world’s leading B2B express delivery company, will launch the Middle East ’s first UAE -Iran road express this November.

UAE, Palestine to set up a joint investment firm (Hamas)

DUBAI — The UAE and Palestine have agreed to the establishment of a new joint investment company, to be announced within a few weeks, according to Mazen Sinokrot, the Palestinian Minister of Economy, who has recently visited the UAE.

[kevao]

None other than Jimmy Carter himself says it does. What more do you want?