Should the UAE be able to port in the U.S.?

[OliveButtercup]

'WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. senators, citing national security concerns, said on Friday they would try to block a company backed by the United Arab Emirates government from acquiring a British firm that runs several U.S. ports.'

I heard Bush on NPR this morning defending the decision to allow the takeover as he sees no apparent danger. -Question- Do you agree that the Dubai Gov't, which is of course apart of the UAE, should be allowed to control these U.S. ports? Do you think it poses a security threat? Are you suprised at Bush's reaction? I know there are some sharp people in this forum and I'm curious as to what you all might think.

[Rogue_7]

Well I by no means profess extensive knowledge, what I do know is that the UAE is one of the most capatilistic, and least radical country in the Middle East. I'm not too worried. If it was pretty much anybody else (Saudis) I would be a bit concerned.

[Darkblade]

Cashocracy.

[Rogue_7]

Cashocracy.

exactly! and that, I can respect. Its these damn theocracys and crazed dictatorships that throw the monkey wrench into the gears of the world.

[kyaa the catlord]

It isn't a big deal. At least they know how to run a port, Dubai is one....

Security will continue to be done by the Coast Guard, as it would be regardless of who is running the port. This is SUCH a non-issue.

[setrict]

Something like 40% of American ports are run by foreign companies as it is, so it's not really that big of a deal. The primary difference here is that the company in question is goverment owned, which puts a slightly different slant on things. The UAE also has a blemished record regarding terrorism, even though they are currently an ally. Sadam was also an ally once.

Though there are legitimate concerns, I think the primary reason we are hearing a lot of sqwuaking from congress is that it's an election year. Having said that, Bush's response was that of a spoiled, whiney ass. Rather than allowing concerns to be addressed (even if they are primarily political), he's being a dick about it. Not cool.

[OliveButtercup]

Good point setrict. The senators are getting in a tizzy over the word 'Arab' claiming it's a threat to homeland security. Regarding your comment on Bush, yeah he also plans on vetoing any opposition congress brings regarding the port. The sale of the ports are bringing in 6.8$ billion and you know how much money talks. :)

[jingi893]

Something like 40% of American ports are run by foreign companies as it isdon't quote me on this...but i believe all ports are operated by foreign companies...

on another note...they will be staffed by americans...dpw will not have anything to do with security...and they will be subject to american law...it's a rational decision that is getting sidetracked by the political posturing...i'm not a fan of bush at all...but i can see reason...it's not a bad deal for anybody...besides...dpw is investing a lot of money into this...i don't think they want some goat-farmer jihadist fucking it up...as someone said...cash rules...

[MrQ]

It isn't a big deal. At least they know how to run a port, Dubai is one....

Security will continue to be done by the Coast Guard, as it would be regardless of who is running the port. This is SUCH a non-issue.


I agree, unfortunately the media thinks this is a big deal. Not to mention the UAE is one our only few allies in the Muslim world next to Jordan.

[Angelyne]

I disagree with the deal, not because the UAE will be in control, but because it's just another example of the Bush Administration completely bypassing the checks and balances of our government.

State and local officials--those most affected by the change in control--were never informed until the deal was already made.

Congress was not informed of this deal.

Rumsfeld claimed he didn't know anything about the deal even though he was on the board that brokered it. Bush is claiming he didn't know anything about it until he signed the papers. :rolleyes:


I'm not suprised the Bush Administration has lied once again, but the shady cirumstances surrounding make me wonder what other backroom deals have been made. And if this pisses off enough people to put an end to Bush's bullshit, then I'm all for the extra squabbling and headlines surrounding it.

[General_Admission]

Not a big deal.

[MrQ]

I disagree with the deal, not because the UAE will be in control, but because it's just another example of the Bush Administration completely bypassing the checks and balances of our government.

State and local officials--those most affected by the change in control--were never informed until the deal was already made.

Congress was not informed of this deal.

Rumsfeld claimed he didn't know anything about the deal even though he was on the board that brokered it. Bush is claiming he didn't know anything about it until he signed the papers. :rolleyes:


I'm not suprised the Bush Administration has lied once again, but the shady cirumstances surrounding make me wonder what other backroom deals have been made. And if this pisses off enough people to put an end to Bush's bullshit, then I'm all for the extra squabbling and headlines surrounding it.

Lol, Bush is the DEVIL!

[Angelyne]

Lol, Bush is the DEVIL!

Nah, that's giving Bush way, way too much credit ;) The devil isn't that stupid.

[kyaa the catlord]

I disagree with the deal, not because the UAE will be in control, but because it's just another example of the Bush Administration completely bypassing the checks and balances of our government.

State and local officials--those most affected by the change in control--were never informed until the deal was already made.

Congress was not informed of this deal.

Rumsfeld claimed he didn't know anything about the deal even though he was on the board that brokered it. Bush is claiming he didn't know anything about it until he signed the papers. :rolleyes:


I'm not suprised the Bush Administration has lied once again, but the shady cirumstances surrounding make me wonder what other backroom deals have been made. And if this pisses off enough people to put an end to Bush's bullshit, then I'm all for the extra squabbling and headlines surrounding it.

He's also descended from reptillians.

[Kass]

Y'all do know that a company out of communist China runs operations at one of our ports already. Most or all of our ports' operations are managed by foreign companies.

They won't own the port. The local port authorities do. This will not change.

The company won't be in charge of security. The US Coast Guard and US Customs always have been and will continue to handle security at the ports.

These deals are always handled this way. They never leave the lower bureacracy.

The company will only handle port operations--making sure that all the forklifts and cranes are working and available, and ensuring that there is a place for everything and everything is in its place.

This is a business deal. We live in a free market economy. Other than ensuring that fair trade laws and security needs are met, our country runs on the principles that the government has no business interfering in business. Congress is WAY out of line.

Evaluations of business sales/mergers, by law, are always handled in private. This prevents unfair stock trading, insider trading, corporate raids, illegal merges, etc. In these deals, the companies must disclose all financial information, holdings, trade secrets, etc. If that information was made public, it could seriously harm the companies involved. The SEC, FTC, DOJ, Commerce Department and Homeland Security are bound by law to NOT disclose that there is even a merger/sale about to take place, let alone the details of it.

The companies are under no obligation to inform local governments they are selling their business or buying one. See above as to why the Federal government didn't.

Bush didn't even know about the deal until the media broke the story.

If a communist country's company can run our port's operations, why can't a country with a free market economy run one? Let's see. China as nuclear weapons, is not our ally, has a large standing army and they can do it. The UAE is a very liberal Arab state, is our ally, is one of the first countries to voluntarily agree to inspections of US-bound cargo at the origination point, not just the destination and has no nukes and an absurdly small army. Which woul you choose?

This whole debate in Congress is about as racist as it gets. One of the congressman opposing this even said in a statement last week that the only reason he opposed the deal is that the company is an Arab one. If it had been an African muslim country, he probably wouldn't have opposed it. Racist.

[TrendSeven]

I agree with Kass.

[Trump]

After listening to the statements made to the press, the congressmen who are opposed to this deal appear to be complete morons. One comment in particular gets to me. Someone tried to explain that because of this deal, our enemies would know exactly how our ports worked, the policies and procedures. I guess it never occurred to him that they probably already knew, and it isn't that hard to find out. So what does this really hurt? Nothing...

[Kass]

How a port works is a matter of public record. There are classes in colleges in logistics and running everything from hot dog stands to international ports. Sheesh, that guy is an idiot.

[MrQ]

How a port works is a matter of public record. There are classes in colleges in logistics and running everything from hot dog stands to international ports. Sheesh, that guy is an idiot.

Was joking about Bush being the devil......

[Kass]

Umm... I was talking about the guy referenced in the post above me. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[Kou123]

well port security is already a complete and utter joke so i don't think ther is anything to this deal.

Although i do find it terribly amusing that ol Bushie found out about it by watching the news, ha ha

[MNJetter]

It's not even like the port is really going to change hands a whole lot. It's not like the port management is being bought out by a different company entirely. It's the British company that currently manages the port that's being bought out by the UAE company. So unless Dubai completely rearranges the way the ports will run, it probably won't even have a change in management.

[Matt W]

I dont think its that big a deal, but it is a stupid thing to do. The company is owned by the UAE, which was friendly with Bin Laden and the Taliban, has helped spread nuke tech to unsavory countries, and had citizens who were 911 hijackers. Its common sense not to put them in charge of running the ports day to day operations. Plus, it was probably done because of Bush and his Administration business ties to the company.

[Kass]

All of the terrorists who bombed the London subways were British citizens. Britain's lax laws allowed several of the 9/11 hijackers to travel unfettered through their country even though they were on watch lists at the time. Arab terrorists have traveled through and lived in London for years. (Germany is worse, by the way.)

By your reasoning, P&O should have been kicked out. It's a British company and some of their citizens are terrorists too and they were too lax on enforcing international laws.

Don't forget Spain. Spain has a lot of terrorists, both Arab and Basque. The bombers on the train there were Spanish citizens. They are also very uncooperative in the "war on terror." They've refused to share information and Spain is also a primary entry point for terrorist who want to get into Europe. Better make sure none of those MNCs that run all of our ports have Spanish investors.

Of course, various US agencies had bits and pieces of intelligence on Sept. 11 well in advance of the attack. Had those agencies been doing their jobs right, it might have been prevented. The terrorists lived in the US for years. We've also had citizens who have disclosed nuclear secrets to other countries. We have organizations that operate freely in the US that support terrorists both emotionally and financially. Our own citizens blow up federal buildings.

Good God, we are a huge security risk. That pretty much rules the US out as a good risk for running port operations too. We shouldn't even be running our own ports.

All the business negotiations for this acquisition would have been done in Britain/UAE anyway. You know, where the two companies are headquartered. The only thing done in the US is requesting approval for the transaction. The two companies would have had everything worked out in that regard BEFORE they came to the US government for clearance.

The company has even agreed to any and every single security measure the US wants to impose, even if it is well beyond what would be required of any other company, like say, not our ally China.

The ports will NOT CHANGE HANDS AT ALL. Ownership of the port will remain exactly as it is. The effect of this is hiring a new manager for one department of a huge company. Part of the deal is that the staff be almost entirely American and almost 100% of the time, when a company sells off part or all of its operations, they write into the deal that the purchasing company keep all but senior level management on as employees. I've been bought and sold in corporate mergers three times now and nothing changed but the company name on my paycheck.

kou123, why would Bush know about this? Honestly, why would he? This is so far below the president, it isn't funny. Transactions like this one happen every single day. Port operations change hands frequently. I used to work for the FTC and they handle US merger/acquisition filings. Several hundred a year. They don't handle international ones, but think about it. If it several hundred large, publicly traded companies are merged or bought/sold every year in the US, it is significantly higher for the rest of the world.

Do you honestly think that any president has the time to micromanage the government? Criminey, there are hundreds of thousand of federal employees in hundreds of departments in dozens of agencies. This is exactly why we have a bureaucracy, to handle all the day-to-day crap that the president and congress can't. I'm quite sure that congress and the president don't have detailed knowledge of 80% of what goes on every day in the US government.

President/congress = Big Picture
The rest of the government = Implements Big Picture

You also must have missed where it is illegal to give out information about mergers and acquisitions prior to government approval, even to people outside the agency. To do so could cause serious harm to the companies involved and cause economic crises. If a major company tanks, a lot of stocks decline. When Oracle was going through the hostile take over of PeopleSoft, several times both companies' stock plummeted, causing a run on tech stocks. The same happened with Microsoft during its anti-trust violations trial.

Congress and the president are the exceptions IF they ask about a specific transaction and even so, if the request comes prior to approval of the transaction, they have to keep it secret too.

Yeah, this whole debacle is a smart move. Let's piss on one of the painfully few allies we have in the Middle East. Let's see if we can't alienate one of the few Arab countries cooperating with our new port security laws regarding inspections.

This will cause a huge negative backlash internationally and nationally. Companies that used to operate freely in the US employing thousands of Americans will rethink operating here. That takes money out of our GNP.

What does this say to Arab Americans? "Sorry, we don't want you. Get out. Because a handful of Arabs committed an atrocious act, every Arab has to pay the price."

In the end, this mess is a political move by the Democrats to gain points for the upcoming election. The Republicans jumped on the bandwagon so they didn't lose their image as "America's defenders." It is all based on racist, political motives. Like I said before, if this had been any other race in the world, this would not be an issue, even though there are a lot of countries with MNCs that are far less trustworthy allies than the UAE.

It is probably one of the most base, vile, racist actions I've seen out of a politician in years.

[OliveButtercup]

Is anyone familiar with the story that UAE banks laundered tons of money for Al-Qaeda?

[Kass]

So did banks in the Cayman Islands. No one is calling for thier heads on a block. Swiss banks laundered money for the Nazis. Since the UAE is the major banking headquarters in Middle East, it's pretty much the only choice. The UAE is the Switzerland of the Middle East.

Every country in the Middle East had relationships with Iraq during the embargos. Every country in the Middle East has some faction of al-Qaeda present. So do the Phillipines, Indonesia and several African countries.

Does anyone even note that the UAE is the only state in that region that allows Christian churches?

Does anyone note that since Sept. 11, the UAE has been one of the most cooperative Arab states in the "war on terror?" They've actually turned over records and information. They've actually worked with us.

This is an opportunity to improve relations with the Middle East. It's an opportunity to show we can actually do business with Arab nations without invading them. This deal, in addition to adding jobs and pumping money into those local economies, the best chance we have to actually start rebuilding our trashed reputation in that region of the world. And it is being blown all to hell thanks to a grandstanding bigot.

Middle Eastern leaders are already saying that this is discrimantory against them based soley on race and they are right. This mess is ruining one of the few good things we could have done to prevent another Sept. 11. Your friends don't fly planes into buildings.

edit

Oh yeah, the UAE gave us $100 million dollars for Katrina relief efforts.

[Matt W]

KASS,

Again, I don't think this is that big of a deal, and there are a lot more important things to be focused on. However, I think that the deal should be carefully reviewed, and if it is found to be ok, then fine. If not, we should tell the UAE exactly why their being denied, and make it as respectful as possible.
I do think there is a difference between the countries you are mentioning and the UAE, which is authoritarian, complicit in the 911 attacks, was one of only 3 countries in the world to recognize the Taliban govt, and allowed nuclear tech to be sold to Iran. This company is owned by the Dubai govt. They may be our ally, but we often have some pretty unsavory allies. I would much rather have China controlling ports than the UAE. Of course part of the uproar over this could probably be called racist, but so could the war on terror and especially the war in Iraq.
I have no idea if Bush knew about it, but it is not unreasonable to think he or high ups in his admin did know, considering the Bush family and high up Admin. people have business ties to the UAE.

[Trump]

It's stupid. If we we that concerned about the UAE we wouldn't have sold them F-16s.