FORUM POLL :Is Bush right to give the government of UAE access to our ports?

[Colin]

First off I don't think the President gave our ports to the UAE. The company which is owned and headquartered in the UAE bought the ports from a shipping firm called P&O which was recently bought by another firm, I forget which one at the moment.

This acquisition had to be approved by the government, as with all current mergers and acquisitions within the United States. Since these ports have already been sold and, to the best of my knowledge, been approved of by the oversight boards then they have been legally acquired by the buyer corporation.

Now first off your question is a full straw man arguement. I'm not standing up for the President but he didn't give away our ports to the UAE since he never had them in the first place, they were owned, as I said before, by the British shipping firm P&O. Nor did he have any oversight in the approving of the acquisition, since that is the domain of the SEC not the President.

Now getting to the matter at hand I must say that I don't really get what all the fuss is about. Just because two of the highjackers came from the UAE doesn't mean that the company itself is a front for terrorists. If we went by this logic than we should cut off all ties with British companies since the Subway bombers and Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, were card carrying British citizens.

If we are going to make a fuss about giving these rights over to a company based and owned by the UAE why isn't their an uproar concerning Citgo which is wholely owned by the Venezuelan government and is under the direct control of Hugo Chavez, you know the guy who says that we are imperialist capitalist oppresors who are trying to destroy his new socialist revolution.

I'm sorry to say this but not allowing a company to purchase privately owned properties in the United States just because they come from a country with Arab in the name is highly quixotic and arrogant. We have no knowledge that this corporation would not abide by American security standards or that this corporation has any dealings with terrorist organizations or been involved in terrorism in any prior circumstance.

So if a company that has bought American ports has no connections with terrorism, has agreed to abide by the rules and regulations set forth for it, and is accepting all US laws and security protocals in its operation o the ports, why should it not own them? Is it for a real reason or are you so engrossed in what-if statements because the government that owns it has Arab in its name that you forget about thinking it out fully.

Concerning Dubai it is one of the most progressive kingdoms in the Middle East. Their emir has been a staunch supporter of westernization, modernization and liberalization throughout his time as ruler. In 40 years he has taken his small kingdom from a small oasis town made out of mud brick to one of the financial tigers in the world sphere. Dubai has become a Switzerland in the desert, which could explain why there's alot of money laundered through there it is a banking centre, and while its not a democracy the government of the UAE has begun to push through reforms of the government to allow for further democracy in their country, most of these are being pushed by the Emir of Dubai IIRC.

So that's my take on this whole thing you probably wont agree with me and I'm sure that there will be a huge vote in favour of not allowing this deal in Congress but I try to just bring the other side to the table.

[Colin]

It might be a good idea, it might not. We can't tell yet because nothing has happened yet to give us an opinion either way. (So I haven't voted)

Most of the funding for 9/11 came from UAE banks. If your party gave one sh**t about actually fighting terrorism, they'd have never appoved this. However, only the Democrats (minus that idiot Joe Lieberman) care about fighting terrorism.

Alot of funds for terrorists also came from banks in Switzerland and Bermuda. Are you now saying that Switzerland and Bermuda are countries that support terrorism? How about we attack both of them because they're supporting terrorism by keeping certain monies in their banks.

That in and of itself is a stupid arguement. Dubai is THE financial centre of the Arab world. It is were every bank in the region has its headquarters and keeps most of its money. Like I said the fact that Dubai is being used as a haven for money-laundering is following a rule not making it stand out as some terrorist supporting state. As I said before the same type of money flows through banks in such places as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Andorra, and Singapore but yet I doubt that you would have any concern over a company that is headquartered in Zurich taking over the ports in question.