Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ridiculous objections (port sale)
The Gulf Today (UAE) ^ | 26 February 2006 | DR MUSA KEILANI

Posted on 02/25/2006 9:30:52 PM PST by Cornpone

WHAT IS TAKING place in Washington over the proposed takeover of container operations at six major ports in the US by a UAE-based company is nothing but a reflection of the real mindset of American politicians influenced by Israel into seeing Arab and Muslim countries as a security risk to the US after the Sept.11 attacks.

We in the Arab World have to draw our own lessons from the affair.

The UAE is involved in this particularly dispute. But there is no doubt that such deals involving any Arab or Muslim country would draw the same objection from American congress members.

Notwithstanding the sweet talk that American politicians give to us, it is a high probability that any other Arab-owned company would face rejection in the hypothesis that it secures a similar deal in the US.

The facts of the current dispute are clear:

Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of the emirate of Dubai, has signed a nearly $7 billion agreement with Britain's P&O to take over the shipping company's port operations around the world. The agreement is awaiting formal approval by a British court.

Under the agreement, DP World will also take over P&O's container operations in six major US ports that the British company had been operating for years. It is a natural transition of operations from one commercial entity which is bought by another.

US security agencies and departments will continue to be in absolute control of security at all ports in the US, including the six involved in the DP World agreement.

Nothing changes whatsover except that DP World will handle all incoming and outgoing containers, which are subject to routine scrutiny by US Customs and security officers from various agencies at the point of final entry and exit.

DP World will have no role whatsoever in any security aspect of the port. It is entirely an American affair.

There should be no hitch in the take-over if all these factors are taken into consideration by critics of the deal. Instead, they are citing "security concerns" and pointing out the UAE had recognised the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 90s.

What the critics are overlooking or deliberately ignoring is the excellent track record of the UAE.

The UAE was among the first in the Arab World to sign up in all measures aimed at tightening security and adopting anti-terrorism measures as suggested by the US following the Sept.11 attacks.

The UAE does not have a record of engaging itself in any extremist attacks or harbouring militants. On the contrary, the country has said it remains on high vigil and alert against extremists.

The UAE is among the leading voices of moderation in the Arab World and it has always followed a positive approach to Arab, regional and international issues.

If anything, the UAE, like Jordan, is known for advocating dialogue to resolve conflict, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere.

The UAE has signed bilateral extradition agreements with others and is also following its obligations under them without fail.

It is ridiculous at best to suggest that the UAE has links with extremism simply because extremist suspects happened to pass through the country on their way somewhere else.

Isn't primary that had the UAE had any inkling of their real intentions while they were present in UAE territory, then they would have been arrested and questioned?

Well, US security and intelligence agencies had tip-offs about an impending attack ahead of Sept.11, but they failed to take preventive action; so how anyone could blame others where they themselves had failed?

The key factor in the dispute over the DP World deal is that a commercial entity from an Arab Muslim country, seeking to build itself as a major player in the international market, is facing bitter opposition to a key project that would catapult it towards its strategic business objectives.

Indeed, not everyone critical of the DP World deal might be inclined to oppose it because of inherent hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.

They might indeed have concerns that they might see as genuine when seen from their perspective. That is where they needs to realise that the DP World-P&O deal as given clearance after a careful intelligence and security reivew.

There is a security system in place in the US, and that has vetted the deal. That should put to rest any "security" concerns, unless of course American congressmembers do not trust their own security arrangements.

If the latter is the case, then they should have no trust in their government either. That being not the case, the obvious conclusion is that Jewish-dominated political and business circles supported by vested interests are mobilising themselves against any effort by any Arab country to emerge into the international market and thus gain an influential role in world affairs whether it wants it or otherwise.

It is heartening to see that the Bush administration committed itself that the DP World takeover would go ahead although after a brief delay.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arabs; d; dubai; ports; sale; security; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-226 next last
To: duckln
How much help can a country be

Maybe you should ask, how much of the stuff for our troops in Iraq have passed though the ports of Dubai. They allow us to use their air force bases for our refueling planes, and their deep docks for our air craft carriers, and other ships and they also help in training and with the sharing of Intel.

61 posted on 02/25/2006 10:33:21 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Sorry if I was messing up your talking points that you got from Rush today, but I was making a counter factual argument.

If unloading the cargo really has nothing to do with national security, then we should have no problem with letting even the bin Laden company in on the action, considering that Saudi is also an "ally" of the US.

But that prospect seems absurd exactly because unloading cargo does have something to do with security, esp. if the unloaders are actively trying to evade security.
62 posted on 02/25/2006 10:33:40 PM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
" Curious how much they gave to Bush 41's library."

Why don't you do some research and find out just how much!! Or are you simply planting seeds?

63 posted on 02/25/2006 10:33:48 PM PST by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
It's not just these threads, it's the MSM, the democrats and so-called conservative pundits more interested in ratings then the truth...and now we see the results.

How is this playing in England and Australia, where both governments have taken a lot of grief in supporting us in the WoT. We're going to be the laughing stock of the world at this rate...so some people can pursure their personal and political agendas.

64 posted on 02/25/2006 10:34:24 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama

Rush wasn't on the air today slick


65 posted on 02/25/2006 10:34:40 PM PST by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: onyx

"Bingo... you don;t have a point. You have an opinion that flies in the face of all facts that have been repeatedly posted here."

Excuse me? Have we lost the ability to debate with civility here? My point is a well founded one. Al Qaeda has been reported to have 4-5 ocean going cargo vessels in their possession. What is to prevent them from loading any nefarious cargo in the middle of the ocean and bringing it into any port in the world? What fact have you reported that flies in the face of that 'realpolitik" ?


66 posted on 02/25/2006 10:35:48 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
Then why don't we have the bin Laden company manage the remaining ports that we are dying to sign away?

Of course that would seem ridiculous because most people have some inkling that the unloading of ships does have something to do with security, especially if the person doing the unloading was actively trying to thwart security measures.



I'm pretty sure that a very minuscule, may I repeat it again, a very very minuscule of people have some inkling to how ports operate. Just to enter any major port today, the security has dramatically changed since 9/11!!!
67 posted on 02/25/2006 10:36:05 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: boycottliberalhollywood.com

They will NOT be in control of our ports.

They will ONLY be managing the loading and unloading of cargo at "some" terminals within "some" ports, after the cargo has been checked, as usual, by the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland Security.


68 posted on 02/25/2006 10:36:45 PM PST by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
What is absurd is you comparing DPW to having bin Laden unloading cargo.... Do you not see how juvenile and simplistic that comparison is?
69 posted on 02/25/2006 10:37:33 PM PST by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; CWOJackson

Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard remain in charge of our security.

The UAE company is not in charge of security, yet you continue to post as if they will be.


70 posted on 02/25/2006 10:37:44 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Some of the results of the campaign of lies...


71 posted on 02/25/2006 10:38:17 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Then that sound of wind whistling past an extended, moistened finger, must have been caused by someone else who sounded just like him.


72 posted on 02/25/2006 10:38:54 PM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: boycottliberalhollywood.com
I'd say that's about 100% too many, imho. If the reason is labor unions, than we need to address that, but union or no, I think there are some things that should not be in foreign control, and our shipping ports are one of them.




Please, please address this here now!??!
What do you think about the U.S. ships owners???
73 posted on 02/25/2006 10:39:09 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
What is to prevent them from loading any nefarious cargo in the middle of the ocean and bringing it into any port in the world?

What is to keep them from doing it now?

74 posted on 02/25/2006 10:40:34 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Right you are. As a matter of fact, the largest port that harbors U.S. Military ships outside of the U.S.A is in Dubai.

That is one of the reasons General Tommy Franks thinks that this is a good deal!!


75 posted on 02/25/2006 10:41:16 PM PST by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Reading this article I've suddenly realized that we could very well loose the War on Terror.

Not because our troops aren't capable of doing the job. Not because our allies haven't been doing their part. But because some people are more consumed with their political ambitions, and their hatred of this President, that it trumps everything else.

This is sick.

76 posted on 02/25/2006 10:41:23 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: onyx

good grief..get a grip on your patronizing projection of me or go play at the DU dummy land! I know all of what you have posted! Not once have I insinuated anything of the sort! This is why I have not got into this fray until tonight..I was afraid this would be the case..Freepers turning on Freepers..chaos and mayham..boy..you guys are buying into the divide and conquer agenda of the left!
Let's debate real concerns with real honesty and rationality!


77 posted on 02/25/2006 10:43:26 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Because each ship is required to forward a manifest of their cargo and all of those on board before they sail towards our Ports. 3 miles before they enter our Waters, the Coast Guards boards and takes over all ships that are attempting to enter our Ports and the original manifest is compared to what is in their Cargo hold and who is aboard the ship....., THAT'S HOW!!!
78 posted on 02/25/2006 10:44:24 PM PST by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225
Nothing wrong with this deal and actually, its GOOD that we are making this deal to strengthen our alliances with these countries! I just hope that the President will have a prime time oval office address about this soon, so i don't have to be keep defending it. Its not my job to do so.
79 posted on 02/25/2006 10:45:02 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

"That is one of the reasons General Tommy Franks thinks that this is a good deal!!"

AND GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS is the MAIN REASON I am leaning towards it!! Let's all slow down a bit here for God's sake.. Let's talk like adults!


80 posted on 02/25/2006 10:45:20 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson