NationStates Jolt Archive


Free Muslims Against Terrorisim - Position on Port Issue

Syniks
23-02-2006, 16:54
Comment - Again, I have to agree with these guys. IMO NO foreign governmental entity should have operational control of any any US port. But they already do - even the one slated for sale - so why should this country be treated differently... especially with the ChiComs owning ports on the Left Coast. :headbang:

Should the U.S. Support the Management of U.S. Ports by Arab Company?

The Bush administration recently approved an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in six major American cities. The sale to a company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is strongly supported by President Bush but has caused bitter opposition by many politicians on Capitol Hill and with the governors of Maryland and New York. Presently, the right to manage those American ports is owned by a non-American company located in Britain.

In response to fierce criticism, President Bush fired back by saying: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a company." President Bush praised the United Arab Emirates as a great friend of the United States and warned congressional critics against sending the wrong message to the Arab world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned. Furthermore, President Bush stated that the deal was fully scrutinized by government officials, who concluded that the deal poses no threat to national security.

The Free Muslims Coalition supports President Bush in his backing of the sale of the management of the Ports to an Arab owned company. The Free Muslims have been the biggest critics of Islamic terrorism and extremism. We have taken numerous positions that were unpopular among our communities when we felt it was the right thing to do.
However, just as we have a zero tolerance approach towards terrorism, we also have a zero tolerance approach toward bigotry against Arabs.

[B]As stated above, the company that presently manages those American ports is not American owned. If critics of the deal were objecting because they did not want a foreign company to manage U.S. ports that would be perfectly fine. However, it is wrong to accept management by one foreign owned company and reject another foreign owned company when both companies are located in nations that are strong allies of the United States.

Indeed, the United Arab Emirates is a great friend to the United States. They have been loyal friends in the war on terror and they are excellent friends to the U.S. military.

The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region.

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates has adopted American style capitalism and tolerance.

The UAE is a success story that is helping to shape the Arab world in a positive way. The UAE has opened its doors completely to Americans and American businesses. Relations between the UAE and United States are so good that the UAE spends billions of dollars in America and only accepts U.S. Dollars for the sale of their oil and gas. Their loyalty to the United States helps keep the American Dollar strong and the American economy moving forward. Thus, just as the UAE opens its arms to America, America should open its arms to the UAE.

Finally, by closing the door on one of our closest allies, the U.S. would be sending the wrong message to voices of moderation in the Middle East and a gift to voices of extremism. We are certain that Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and HAMAS would jump on this issue by arguing that Americans hate all Arabs and Muslims including their allies. The Free Muslims have argued time and time again that the United States must do a better job of supporting moderate Arabs and Muslims. The uproar against this ports deal is misplaced and the Free Muslims stand by President Bush for fighting back against the voices of bigotry.

Please RESPOND to this article by sharing your views on our Free Speech Zone (Blog) at: www.freemuslims.org/blog/

For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org
Rhoderick
23-02-2006, 16:56
But American and European businesses can controll "essential" parts of other countries' ecconomies e.g. water and electrisity companies in South America and Africa?!?!
Syniks
23-02-2006, 17:07
But American and European businesses can controll "essential" parts of other countries' ecconomies e.g. water and electrisity companies in South America and Africa?!?!
I think that is stupid too. No country should surrender control of stragetic assets to another country - corporate multinationalisim be damned.

But saying it is stupid doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day. :(
Gift-of-god
23-02-2006, 17:40
They might be taking over the US sea ports, but the US is taking over their space-ports!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/17/state/n192121S84.DTL
Anybodybutbushia
23-02-2006, 17:52
The New York Times actually printed an intercepted e-mail:

UAE (UAEloves69s@hotmail.com) wrote:

Date: 02/14/06 07:18:12 -800

From: UAE

To: George_Bush@whitehouse.gov

Subject: Happy Valentine's Day

President Bush,

All your port belong to us.

Sincerely,

UAE

I guess there really is not much we can do.
Tactical Grace
23-02-2006, 18:28
Any service involving national infrastructure, including its design, construction, operation, maintenance and ownership, anywhere in the world, can be contracted out to any company.

That's globalisation for you, and it is this that allows me to draw my paycheck. :D
Andaluciae
23-02-2006, 18:31
Any service involving national infrastructure, including its design, construction, operation, maintenance and ownership, anywhere in the world, can be contracted out to any company.

That's globalisation for you, and it is this that allows me to draw my paycheck. :D
Hear, hear!
Kroisistan
23-02-2006, 19:02
I'm not concerned about the UAE. Just because they're from the Middle East doesn't make them terrorists, and the UAE has always been a friend and ally of the US and the West in general.

Plus they won the bid fair and square. People just need to deal with it.

@Syniks - Why can't you just call them Chinese(these 'ChiComs' you speak of? It's like calling Americans Yankapitalists. Kinda silly and derogatory if you ask me.
Norleans
23-02-2006, 19:25
I'm not worried about the UAE taking over the ports since they'll find out that it is the Longshoreman's and Teamster's unions and the Mafia that are in actual control there anyway.

::: Joins federal witness protection program :::

:D
Syniks
23-02-2006, 19:34
@Syniks - Why can't you just call them Chinese(these 'ChiComs' you speak of? It's like calling Americans Yankapitalists. Kinda silly and derogatory if you ask me.
For the same reason I did not use the term 'Arab' when referinq to the UAE. There are Chinese firms that are not directly affiliated with the Chinese Communist Government. I wanted to differentiate between the two.
Kroisistan
23-02-2006, 19:34
I'm not worried about the UAE taking over the ports since they'll find out that it is the Longshoreman's and Teamster's unions and the Mafia that are in actual control there anyway.

::: Joins federal witness protection program :::

:D

You watch the Daily Show, don't you. Admit it!:)
Invidentias
23-02-2006, 19:41
I think that is stupid too. No country should surrender control of stragetic assets to another country - corporate multinationalisim be damned.

But saying it is stupid doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day. :(

On the contrary, its by this very idea of sharing stragetic assets that force co-existance.. this was the foundation for the European Economic Community which would become the EU.

While I myself am a little uneasy about the deal, I find it difficult to belive anyone who was satisfied with the British operation of these ports would now be against the UAE to control them (under the guise of increased security threat). With the level of fanactisim housed in Europe today, I could see no more increase to a security threat then before.. and this could only be chaucked up to racial profiling (interesting Democrats are largely leading the movement against this deal).

This entire affair seems largely overblown to me reguardless as Homeland security still operates and mandates security at all of our ports.
Lacadaemon
23-02-2006, 20:00
I think the UAE thing is racism. The UAE government, which I beleive operates DP World, has never shown any ill intentions towards the US.

As far as 'links to terrorism' thing about the UAE, it basically boils down to the fact that the UAE had people that used UAE banks to funnel money for terrorists and some UAE citizens had links to Al-queda. Also the recognized the Taliban. (At least that is what I can make out).

I'm not sure that recognizing the taliban means anything per se, other than an acknowledgement of a fait accomplis - though maybe someone else knows more about it. As for the rest, the UK could have leveled the same accusations at the US during the 70-80-90s. I am sure the US would have been pissed if US companies started to get bounced for that reason.
Auranai
23-02-2006, 20:06
Comment - Again, I have to agree with these guys. IMO NO foreign governmental entity should have operational control of any any US port. But they already do - even the one slated for sale - so why should this country be treated differently... especially with the ChiComs owning ports on the Left Coast. :headbang:

The only semi-logical argument I've heard from my conservative "anti muslim port ownership" compatriots on this issue is that, when we allow foreign governments to run our ports, we have no control of the vetting process they use when hiring their own citizens to work at said ports. A valid argument, IMO, and one worth debating.
Deep Kimchi
23-02-2006, 20:13
Perosnally, I think the whole thing is overblown, unless you're a racist who thinks that all Arabs are terrorists.

Whoa - I wonder if Chuck Schumer realizes the racist crap he's been spewing...

Listen folks, it's a multinational corporation. These sorts of entities are more powerful than most nations, and have no interest in hiring terrorists.

They exist to make large amounts of money, and terrorism is bad for business.

While I might wonder about a company that is 100% controlled by a foreign government (like some Chinese corporations are), I think that in this case, we're talking about a bunch of rich people who are just buying up other companies.

It's not like they're going to hire Osama and friends to handle port security. That's still going to be handled by the US.
Tweedlesburg
23-02-2006, 20:24
The only semi-logical argument I've heard from my conservative "anti muslim port ownership" compatriots on this issue is that, when we allow foreign governments to run our ports, we have no control of the vetting process they use when hiring their own citizens to work at said ports. A valid argument, IMO, and one worth debating.
I'm sure some sort of compromise could be made on that if they're that concerned.
Tactical Grace
23-02-2006, 20:26
The only semi-logical argument I've heard from my conservative "anti muslim port ownership" compatriots on this issue is that, when we allow foreign governments to run our ports, we have no control of the vetting process they use when hiring their own citizens to work at said ports. A valid argument, IMO, and one worth debating.
It is not a government. It is a multinational corporation. There is a difference.
Norleans
23-02-2006, 20:53
You watch the Daily Show, don't you. Admit it!:)

I plead the 5th :)