MD Gov. Ehrlich Takes Measures to Stop Arab Port Deal

[ekrem]

Hello. Very sad situation. Masses can't differ. I agree with dilloducks first post in this thread. UAE is very far modern. They have some problems with homosexuals, but when Iraq would be like UAE than USA has done a good job.

You have to look it from the other side too:
UAE is in transistion for some years UAE is trying to lay UAE's future beyond the time wwhen Oil is drilled-out in UAE. They invest much in different areas.
And from my view, there is no base from stopping UAE buying in in American ports.

These investors have much money. Such behaviour, call it over-patriotism can lead to a over-think of these potent investors to invest their money in America.

 

[dilloduck]

The only thing I can't puzzle out is why Bush is being so secretive? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think maybe he has some very good reasons, but can't say so right at the moment.

I just heard some RUMORS floating around that it may be more a problem of cronyism .IF that is true it could be worse than merely opting for a company owned by an Arab country.

 

[Bonnie]

Hello. Very sad situation. Masses can't differ. I agree with dilloducks first post in this thread. UAE is very far modern. They have some problems with homosexuals, but when Iraq would be like UAE than USA has done a good job.

You have to look it from the other side too:
UAE is in transistion for some years UAE is trying to lay UAE's future beyond the time wwhen Oil is drilled-out in UAE. They invest much in different areas.
And from my view, there is no base from stopping UAE buying in in American ports.

These investors have much money. Such behaviour, call it over-patriotism can lead to a over-think of these potent investors to invest their money in America.

Maybe it is just as obvious as Bush sees this as a great boost to our economy?

 

[Bonnie]

I just heard some RUMORS floating around that it may be more a problem of cronyism .IF that is true it could be worse than merely opting for a company owned by an Arab country.

Well that would depend on where those rumors actually came from though. Hillary or Schumer could have leaked that one out there?

 

[ekrem]

Maybe it is just as obvious as Bush sees this as a great boost to our economy?

Hello. I don't really know exactly about sums of arab capital fluency in America.
But what i got from Turkish sources over time, since 11.9. arabs took slightly their money from USA and invested elsewhere.

Slightly is of course relative by these amounts Arabs have in USA.
Maybe it is just a sign: "Look!!! we even give you sensible ares of our security" to please some arab investors again.
But i am not that competent to talk in these areas.

 

[dilloduck]

Well that would depend on where those rumors actually came from though. Hillary or Schumer could have leaked that one out there?

It was someone who reports on the dept of Homeland Security who said Bush had recently appointed someone who may benefit somehow. Details were sketchy--just thought I'd toss it out there. If it's true I'm sure we'll hear more about it.

Another thing to think about is why would any company want to take a chance of being responsible for another 9/11. I doubt the UAE wants to take the pounding Afghanistan did. The UAE are probably the most "moderate" muslims there are and have worked closely with the US after 9/11 to fight terrorism. In fact they had one 9/11 hijacker stopped for questioning but the CIA gave them the OK to release him.

 

[Bonnie]

It was someone who reports on the dept of Homeland Security who said Bush had recently appointed someone who may benefit somehow. Details were sketchy--just thought I'd toss it out there. If it's true I'm sure we'll hear more about it.

Another thing to think about is why would any company want to take a chance of being responsible for another 9/11. I doubt the UAE wants to take the pounding Afghanistan did. The UAE are probably the most "moderate" muslims there are and have worked closely with the US after 9/11 to fight terrorism. In fact they had one 9/11 hijacker stopped for questioning but the CIA gave them the OK to release him.

That is true, but Im wondering how careful they would be in sealing any cracks on their end?

 

[dilloduck]

That is true, but Im wondering how careful they would be in sealing any cracks on their end?

Ultimately we cannot guarantee any security. We can only do the best we can. Additionally conservatives have begged for Bush to push agendas through and ignore his politcal opponents. This isn't the time to panic like the opposition is encouraging us to do. I happen to enjoy the fact that the dems are chosing to make national security a big issue. It will come back around and bite them in the ass. Look at all the other areas where they could care less about it.

 

[Mr. P]

Well folks, you’ve all heard the saying, “It’s too late to close the barn door, cuz the horse is already out” (or something like that), right?

First I don’t like this port thing a bit. The way I see it WE ARE now the frog in the boiling water…No? Sure we are.

It started with 7-11 stores, then motel/hotels years ago. It moved on to major real estate deals. I read just today that the UAE has purchased 230 park place (I think that was the place) anyway it’s a major piece of real-estate in NYC. Now port operations too.

Personally, I think its time we stand for US ownership of US land, property, business etc.
I’m not and isolationist, but damn there need to be SOME limits.

This Country is being sold piece by piece, slow but sure….we’ll wakeup someday and say, damn what happened! I hope that day is TODAY, before the water BOILS!

That’s my 2 cents worth. Unfortunately, I think it may be too late to change the tide.

I hope I’m wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

Well folks, you’ve all heard the saying, “It’s too late to close the barn door, cuz the horse is already out” (or something like that), right?

First I don’t like this port thing a bit. The way I see it WE ARE now the frog in the boiling water…No? Sure we are.

It started with 7-11 stores, then motel/hotels years ago. It moved on to major real estate deals. I read just today that the UAE has purchased 230 park place (I think that was the place) anyway it’s a major piece of real-estate in NYC. Now port operations too.

Personally, I think its time we stand for US ownership of US land, property, business etc.
I’m not and isolationist, but damn there need to be SOME limits.

This Country is being sold piece by piece, slow but sure….we’ll wakeup someday and say, damn what happened! I hope that day is TODAY, before the water BOILS!

That’s my 2 cents worth. Unfortunately, I think it may be too late to change the tide.

I hope I’m wrong.

Agreed---if we are going to immediately assume that foreign investment in America is "dangerous" then why are we allowing them to buy everything else. Are the ports somehow the ONLY way we can be harmed?

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm with Dillo - I can see both reasons to veto this deal and reasons to be OK with it. I would really like some more information on how this sale will affect port operations. Will Americans lose a bunch of jobs to Arabs? Will terrorists suddenly be able to ship their trade to our shores unnoticed?

 

[Annie]

The one I heard was that UAE is willing to invest the billions of dollars it will take to do the job and the company has an excellant track record. The UAE is one of the most progressive Arab countries in the mideast. We would be absolutely thrilled if Iraq comes out looking anything like UAE. I'm still in the middle of the road on this one on this one because thier is so much we don't know.

From every source I've heard, UAE refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. They also recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...ate&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Bush says he'll veto any bill to block the deal--I've heard that the deal won't really change anything other than the name on the deed, but I can't get past the idea of having the Arab Emirits (spelling?) in charge of US ports.

I can just see the headline..."Mushroom cloud over Washington" "Authorities speculate nuclear weapon brought in through Arab-owned ports"

 

[nosarcasm]

Bush says he'll veto any bill to block the deal--I've heard that the deal won't really change anything other than the name on the deed, but I can't get past the idea of having the Arab Emirits (spelling?) in charge of US ports.

I can just see the headline..."Mushroom cloud over Washington" "Authorities speculate nuclear weapon brought in through Arab-owned ports"

irrational fears are not good reasons to deny it to the UAE. Except you say
all Arabs should not be allowed to visit the US.

 

[Annie]

irrational fears are not good reasons to deny it to the UAE. Except you say
all Arabs should not be allowed to visit the US.

I think that the US should make it policy NOT to have sensitive areas under anything but American control-from the custodian to the CEO. I know, I sound like WJ in a way, though I could care less if the American were of any hue or religion.

 

[nosarcasm]

well I am not sure the deal would put any US security in jeopardy. I need
more info in what ways the change of ownership would affect customs
and safety inspections.

The mere fact that they are Arabs and are a security risk is disingenious
or youhave to advocate to intern Arabs or kick em out of the country imo.

Does the company do anything about it, do they hire customs people etc?

It could be said private companies should not do government security work per se. I am not sure that is a conservative viewpoint though.

I suspect politicians just cry wolf to look tough on terrorism and the Dems now see an issue where they can smear the president as weak on domestic terrorism.

Lots of shouting not much information. I have not heard a solid argument yet only that Arabs can not be trusted. While I agree with that I am not sure
if the ownership really changes the port security.

 

[dilloduck]

I think that the US should make it policy NOT to have sensitive areas under anything but American control-from the custodian to the CEO. I know, I sound like WJ in a way, though I could care less if the American were of any hue or religion.

let's hear it for nationalism !!

 

[Annie]

well I am not sure the deal would put any US security in jeopardy. I need
more info in what ways the change of ownership would affect customs
and safety inspections.

The mere fact that they are Arabs and are a security risk is disingenious
or youhave to advocate to intern Arabs or kick em out of the country imo.

Does the company do anything about it, do they hire customs people etc?

It could be said private companies should not do government security work per se. I am not sure that is a conservative viewpoint though.

I suspect politicians just cry wolf to look tough on terrorism and the Dems now see an issue where they can smear the president as weak on domestic terrorism.

Lots of shouting not much information. I have not heard a solid argument yet only that Arabs can not be trusted. While I agree with that I am not sure
if the ownership really changes the port security.

I'm not totally convinced at this late date that FDR wasn't correct in the internment camps, though the seizing of property was wrong no matter what. With that said, no one is advocating rounding up those from the ME, with proper documentation, much less citizenship.

Putting any 'sensitive areas' in any type of control of a company based in the ME is insane. Personally, now that the issue was raised, I wouldn't be happy with UK control either, if I'd known about it. That's the problem for the administration, the UAE brought this to the forefront.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not totally convinced at this late date that FDR wasn't correct in the internment camps, though the seizing of property was wrong no matter what. With that said, no one is advocating rounding up those from the ME, with proper documentation, much less citizenship.

Putting any 'sensitive areas' in any type of control of a company based in the ME is insane. Personally, now that the issue was raised, I wouldn't be happy with UK control either, if I'd known about it. That's the problem for the administration, the UAE brought this to the forefront.

US intelligence is actively recruiting Arabs as we speak.

 

[Annie]

US intelligence is actively recruiting Arabs as we speak.

and?