Dubai Ports Deal Back?

[Secretariat]

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=849F046D-E0C3-F08F-991D793F942625E6

"REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets

In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor. "

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=849F046D-E0C3-F08F-991D793F942625E6

"REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets

In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor. "
_________
In your hurry to putmout the above quote, you forgot to include the next sentence from your link- (asterisk is mine so your eyes will not skip over it!):
"Last month, lawmakers from ****both parties**** in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors."
_____________
FYI- I'm voting mostly Demo this time around, but not for any incumbents.

[Secretariat]

_________
In your hurry to putmout the above quote, you forgot to include the next sentence from your link- (asterisk is mine so your eyes will not skip over it!):
"Last month, lawmakers from ****both parties**** in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors."
_____________
FYI- I'm voting mostly Demo this time around, but not for any incumbents.

So who said anything about parties. It is being voted on tomorrow. Let's stop this nonsense of foreign countries running our ports through a loophole.

[kenwoodallpromos]

So who said anything about parties. It is being voted on tomorrow. Let's stop this nonsense of foreign countries running our ports through a loophole.

"top House Democrats discovered" for what it's worth.
The most amazing part is that I'm surprised even the congressional staffs read what is being voted on, let alone Congress itself, regardless of party.
Actually I think the Repubs in Congress have been trying to slip a few things past lately; this one the Demos caught, the stem cell thing Bush caught today!!LOL!!

[Secretariat]

"top House Democrats discovered" for what it's worth.
The most amazing part is that I'm surprised even the congressional staffs read what is being voted on, let alone Congress itself, regardless of party.
Actually I think the Repubs in Congress have been trying to slip a few things past lately; this one the Demos caught, the stem cell thing Bush caught today!!LOL!!

lol...yeah, well as soon as GW is out in 08, the stem cell thing will go through no party what party is in...the nation supports it in polls and even a Republican Congress voted for it, just couldn't get the override....

only one not on board is GW again....(and Lefty)....

[JustRalph]

So who said anything about parties. It is being voted on tomorrow. Let's stop this nonsense of foreign countries running our ports through a loophole.

Then you are going to have to figure out a way to get China out of half of the coast of california. Chinese interests own the companies that run 50% of the ports on the west coast of the country. Or did you forget that bit of info from the last time this came up? The whole issue is a joke...........just like before. Once again the Dems selling a pig in a poke and calling it "Security for the country" or "securing the country" depending on who is doing the truth bending.

[kenwoodallpromos]

lol...yeah, well as soon as GW is out in 08, the stem cell thing will go through no party what party is in...the nation supports it in polls and even a Republican Congress voted for it, just couldn't get the override....

only one not on board is GW again....(and Lefty)....
______________
FYI, I support the stem cell bill.

[wes]

Now they are talking about selling the airlines to foreign country's. That way they can get us from the air also.
Our leaders have their heads up their asses so dam far none of them can see day light.
One day it will be too late. Or perhaps it all read is.

wes

[JustRalph]

Now they are talking about selling the airlines to foreign country's. That way they can get us from the air also.
Our leaders have their heads up their asses so dam far none of them can see day light.
One day it will be too late. Or perhaps it all read is.

wes

go ahead, let them buy the airlines. They don't make any money anyway. Americans will just start new airlines.........and they will lose money too....

[Secretariat]

Wasn't this the country GW wanted to hand over to control our ports?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_us/us_emirates_child_jockeys

Suit claims UAE rulers enslaved boys
By MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press

MIAMI - Rulers of the United Arab Emirates were accused in a lawsuit of enslaving tens of thousands of boys over three decades and forcing them to work as jockeys in the popular sport of camel racing.

The lawsuit was filed last week by unnamed parents of boys suspected of being abducted, sold and enslaved. They claim more than 30,000 boys could have been victimized and seek class-action status.

The lawsuit alleges Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the crown prince of Dubai, and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum, the deputy ruler, were the most active perpetrators.

[Show Me the Wire]

I say live and let live. It is a different culture, we should be understanding of their customs. Isn't that what the liberal left U.N. crowd wants?

Seriously, this is why the some of the world hates the U.S. Using U.S. secular laws to interpret an Islamic sovereign foreign nation's rulers is terrible foreign policy.

[Tom]

No, having diplomatic relations with a POS nation that allows this crap is unacceptable. Screw the thier customs thing - we should not have any dealings with backwards flintstone countrries.

[kenwoodallpromos]

No, having diplomatic relations with a POS nation that allows this crap is unacceptable. Screw the thier customs thing - we should not have any dealings with backwards flintstone countrries.
_________________
I think some Keeneland breeders may disagree with you.

"We thought going in that we may not have as many million-dollar horses, but we anticipated that the top end would be stronger," Keeneland sales director Geoffrey Russell said. "The 30 [seven-figure] horses outgrossed last year's 39 horses. … Obviously when John Magnier and Sheikh Mohammed team up, they go at it at a higher level than anybody else. The next level down is a little bit lighter, I would have to say."

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

Please do not misunderstand. I do not favor any foreign nation controlling our ports of entry.

Surprised at sec. not having an objection to a loony attorney trying to create foreign policy by using the judicial system. This is an example of behavior that puts the U.S.A. in a bad light. Forcing our secular laws and views on those Islamic nations.

I do not support the actions of the rulers of the UAB, but the U.S. can't correct every injustice in the world, especially when the wrong does not effect the U.S. or its citizens security.

This time I side with sec, hcap, and 46 on the issue of ill will from such misguided attempts to correct perceived wrongs in the world. This lawsuit may result in more homicide bombers and all over camel racing.

Sometimes I just can't figure out what sec wants. We have all these discussions in which sec states U.S. meddling in sovereign country affairs creates all this ill will toward the U.S., and yet he does not disparage the loony attorney's attempt to force U.S. Christian type morals on a sovereign Islamic foreign state.

[Lefty]

wanna talk stem cell research? GW only Pres to ever allocate one thin dime to stem cell research. Clinton 0. I'm not against stemcell research, just don't think the govt should be doing it. It's going to be a billion dollar business and plenty of private companies will jump on board. It does NOT require the govt to be involved in a big way.

[JPinMaryland]

The Saudis had got rid of the boy jockeys just in time for this years races from Dubai. This was pointed out on ESPN at the time of the Dubai Cup, and the other races. I guess it was bad public relations...

[Secretariat]

Sometimes I just can't figure out what sec wants. We have all these discussions in which sec states U.S. meddling in sovereign country affairs creates all this ill will toward the U.S., and yet he does not disparage the loony attorney's attempt to force U.S. Christian type morals on a sovereign Islamic foreign state.

For crying out loud, we're talking about slavery here. Not "customs" or "Christian morality" to be respected. I would have hoped everyone would agree on this one.

My point is that do we really want a monarchy (this allegedly includes the crown prince) that condones slavery to be handling our port security? Aren't these kinds of nations we generally go to war with or initiate sanctions upon?

[Show Me the Wire]

Slavery has been historically acceptable through out the world. Just because tHe U.S. abolished involuntary servitude based on Christian ideals of human dignity does not mean slavery is not acceptable in other socities.

It seems you do not mind forcing your morals, about involuntary service, on another culture as you are in agreement with this specific moral.

To use hcap's words you can't cherry pick. If you truly believe U.S. meddling in other sovereign nations business causes ill will to the U.S. you can not take a position reflecting selective application of interference, without acknowledging advocating such will cause ill will towards the U.S.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sorry for the second post I lost my connection before I finished the thought.

Regarding the ally issue. An ally should be based an alliance that is hopefully mutually beneficial for both countries and notbased on religious or moral views. In this case no harm no foul. No U.S. security interests or U.S. citizens were put in harms way so it is none of the U.S. business how widly popular camel races are conducted by Arab Islamic countries.

[Secretariat]

Sorry SMTW. I draw the line on offering national port security contracts to nation states that support slavery. Guess you got to draw the line somewhere. It's slavery for me.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sorry SMTW. I draw the line on offering national port security contracts to nation states that support slavery. Guess you got to draw the line somewhere. It's slavery for me.

Please read my post #14. I said, "I do not favor any foreign nation controlling our ports of entry."

I draw the line at any foreign nation, that is pretty clear. Any how or way what does the lawsuit have to do with port security. Nothing, nada, zilch, zip. It is an aggregious attempt at imposing U.S. ideals; something you rally against, on a sovereign foreign state, which more than likely will produce ill will against the U.S.

So am I correct in understanding that you may be in favor of foreign policy which may result in ill will towards the U.S. if you agree with the morality the policy is based upon?

[Secretariat]

Please read my post #14. I said, "I do not favor any foreign nation controlling our ports of entry."

I draw the line at any foreign nation, that is pretty clear. Any how or way what does the lawsuit have to do with port security. Nothing, nada, zilch, zip. It is an aggregious attempt at imposing U.S. ideals; something you rally against, on a sovereign foreign state, which more than likely will produce ill will against the U.S.

So am I correct in understanding that you may be in favor of foreign policy which may result in ill will towards the U.S. if you agree with the morality the policy is based upon?

I am in the rare position of agreeing with Tom, and his quote:

"No, having diplomatic relations with a POS nation that allows this crap is unacceptable. Screw the their customs thing - we should not have any dealings with backwards flintstone countrries."

The lawsuit speaks to the human rights issues (slavery) of a nation the administration wants to provide security at our ports. Slavery indicates a blatant disregard for "basic" human values. I don't think there would be any ill will by most nations towards us if we say declare we don't want a nation put in charge of our port security because of their suport of slavery.

As I said, slavery is where I draw the line. And yes, I think that is one of many factors on why to pass on the UAE.

Is your post advocating doing any business with countries that actively promote slavery?

[Tom]

Look, if we are going to take the positon of a world leader, spreading democracy, being the "good guys" then we had better start walking the walk. We do not do it now. We need to address ALL POS nations, slavery everywhere, the SUdan - YES. It is duisgusting that WE allow it to continue there while we suc up to POS sorray arabia and pakistan. We KNOW generally where Bin LAden is - yet we do NOTHING! China - one of the biggest violators of human right ever, yet there we are, rolling over with our legs up in the air.

[Show Me the Wire]

I am in the rare position of agreeing with Tom, and his quote:
Slavery indicates a blatant disregard for "basic" human values. I don't think there would be any ill will by most nations towards us if we say declare we don't want a nation put in charge of our port security because of their suport of slavery.

As I said, slavery is where I draw the line. And yes, I think that is one of many factors on why to pass on the UAE.

Is your post advocating doing any business with countries that actively promote slavery?

How about killing innocent people in the name of radical Islam because of U.S. support of Israel. Is that a blatant disregard for "basic" human values?

[Secretariat]

How about killing innocent people in the name of radical Islam because of U.S. support of Israel. Is that a blatant disregard for "basic" human values?

That's where I thought you were going.

So I post that I beleive slavery is wrong, and that the UAE has allegendly enslaved up to 30,000 young boys, and post that I think that it is wrong to allow a country with slavery to be hired to handle US port security, and you attempt to somehow connect this to the war on terror.

I'm talking about why in the world we would enter into taxpayer business CONTRACTS with nations that foster slavery. If you want to start a different thread on the war on terror, then do so. This has nothing to do with that.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

I am trying to understand your posiition about U.S. interference in foreign affairs. You give off conflicting signals. The war on terror or the terrorists, I believe you have opined in the past is the result of U.S. meddling in other countries affairs. Yet, now you want to interfere on another country's affairs that have no effect on the U.S., because you are appaled at their behavior.

[Secretariat]

Sec:

I am trying to understand your posiition about U.S. interference in foreign affairs. You give off conflicting signals. The war on terror or the terrorists, I believe you have opined in the past is the result of U.S. meddling in other countries affairs. Yet, now you want to interfere on another country's affairs that have no effect on the U.S., because you are appaled at their behavior.

The war on terror and 3000 people dying has nothing to do with a slavery issue in the UAE.

I'm not talking about directly interfering with another countries behaviour here, I just don't want our taxpayer dollars going to help fund it's existence.

I'm not advocating invading the UAE because of this slavery allegation. I'm saying, let's not do business with them. How is that interfering with them?

Personally, this is a prime example of a UN issue for condemantion of their actions and possible united nation sanctions unless this proactice is corrected.

[Show Me the Wire]

Statement about sovereign nation made by sec.

"Since the Taliban was the ruling party of a sovereign nation Afghanistan, would those arrested defending their nation be terrorists, or simply those defending their homeland and be entitled to provisions under the Geneva Convention?"

Statements you make like the one above are very confusing on your position.

But we are getting off the path. I understand you want to break off diplomatic relations with the UAE as your sensabilities have been offended about young camel jockeys.

You ask, I'm saying, let's not do business with them. How is that interfering with them? My original question to you concerned the looney lawyer trying to impose U.S. secular law on a sovereign foreign nation, not if you think we should or shouldn't have diplomatic relations with the UAE.

This is a given. The lawsuit if successful will impose U.S. standards of appropriate behavior as interpreted by a U.S. citizen (judge) on a sovereign people without any justification of harm to the U.S. or to a U.S. citizen.

More direct question. Isn't the institution of a lawsuit in the U.S. an attempt to subject a sovereign foreign nation to U.S. secuar law?

The above question has no bearing on any one's moral outrage of alleged slavery or if the U.S. should even have a diplomatic relationship with the UAE.

If you agree the lawsuit is an attempt to subject the foreign nation to U.S. standards of behavior, when is it appropriate to impose U.S. standards of behavior on foreign countries? Having a U.S. citizen determine the standards of behavior for foreign nationals in their own native land is interference of the highest order.

The above two questions are simple and direct, address my original issue and you should have no problem in explaining if you feel it is or is not an attempt to subject a foreign nation to U.S. standards of behavior.

[Show Me the Wire]

Bumped, as I did not want sec to miss my questions.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The war on terror and 3000 people dying has nothing to do with a slavery issue in the UAE.

I'm not talking about directly interfering with another countries behaviour here, I just don't want our taxpayer dollars going to help fund it's existence.

I'm not advocating invading the UAE because of this slavery allegation. I'm saying, ************let's not do business with them. How is that interfering with them?

Personally, this is a prime example of a UN issue for condemantion of their actions and possible united nation sanctions unless this proactice is corrected.
_________

I don't want to see your picks for next years' Dubai races!!LOL!!

[Secretariat]

Statement about sovereign nation made by sec.

"Since the Taliban was the ruling party of a sovereign nation Afghanistan, would those arrested defending their nation be terrorists, or simply those defending their homeland and be entitled to provisions under the Geneva Convention?"

Statements you make like the one above are very confusing on your position.

That statement is about following the Geneva Conventions in war which the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee agree with me as well as Colin Powell and many of the military. The issue here is about hiring a nation UAE for port security which has allegedly supported slavery for young boys at the crown prince level. How do you make these leaps?

But we are getting off the path.

No, you're getting off the path.


I understand you want to break off diplomatic relations with the UAE as your sensabilities have been offended about young camel jockeys.

Yes, I don't beleive in doing taxpayer business with nations that support slavery of young boys.


You ask, I'm saying, let's not do business with them. How is that interfering with them? My original question to you concerned the looney lawyer trying to impose U.S. secular law on a sovereign foreign nation, not if you think we should or shouldn't have diplomatic relations with the UAE.

This is a given. The lawsuit if successful will impose U.S. standards of appropriate behavior as interpreted by a U.S. citizen (judge) on a sovereign people without any justification of harm to the U.S. or to a U.S. citizen.

More direct question. Isn't the institution of a lawsuit in the U.S. an attempt to subject a sovereign foreign nation to U.S. secuar law?


That's for a court to decide. Individuals have sued other nations for monetary reperations, and if there is any issue worth taking a stand on it is slavery.


The above question has no bearing on any one's moral outrage of alleged slavery or if the U.S. should even have a diplomatic relationship with the UAE.

If you agree the lawsuit is an attempt to subject the foreign nation to U.S. standards of behavior, when is it appropriate to impose U.S. standards of behavior on foreign countries? Having a U.S. citizen determine the standards of behavior for foreign nationals in their own native land is interference of the highest order.

The above two questions are simple and direct, address my original issue and you should have no problem in explaining if you feel it is or is not an attempt to subject a foreign nation to U.S. standards of behavior.

If you look back at my original post and every post I made in this thread, it relates to the issue of slavery, the issue of doing taxpayer business with a nation supporting the practice of slavery.

Frankly, I am happy the case is being brought forward as the issue has been brought to light by this suit. Your attempt to make it an issue of an improper lawsuit is not what this thread is about. It is about two things:

a. UAE recommended to handle port security by the GW admin
b. UAE supports slavery of young boys.

The law suit just bring issue (b) to light.

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh, I see it is guilt by association. President Bush is guilty because he was willing to do business with the UAE rulers. Just as Kewnwoodall pointed out others must share guilt by association, such as, Keeneland sales, horse breeders, racetracks that allow the UAE rulers race there, all the individual governors and senators of the states that allow the UAE rulers to own and operate businesses in their respective states. As well as the past Presidents that did business with UAE rulers.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with port security, so how do you relate slavery to port security. Is that allegation in the lawsuit.

No matter what dance you do the filing of a lawsuit asking a U.S. citizen to set standards of behavior on a sovereign foreign rulers is interference. The same type of U.S. interference you claim causes ill will towards the U.S.

But it was never about the merits and the practical effect of a lawsuit, it was all about President Bush bashing implying the President condoned slavery through association with these despicable people. To paraphrase Suff, you are being intellectually dishonest.

[Secretariat]

But it was never about the merits and the practical effect of a lawsuit, it was all about President Bush bashing implying the President condoned slavery through association with these despicable people. To paraphrase Suff, you are being intellectually dishonest.

It goes to the question of judgment and leadership and intelligence when the President decides to put a tiny oil rich slavery supporting country in charge of our ports. It's as simple a that. Or maybe it's just your popular refrain - "it was Clinton's fault."

[Lefty]

It goes to the question of judgment and leadership and intelligence when the President decides to put a tiny oil rich slavery supporting country in charge of our ports. It's as simple a that. Or maybe it's just your popular refrain - "it was Clinton's fault."
Wasn't it Clinton that put the Chinese in charge of some of our ports?

[Tom]

Yes, it was, and as part of the deal, he GAVE them top secret military and computer technology that is now being used against our best interests.
Clinton was consistent - everything he touched turned to ____!

[Show Me the Wire]

It goes to the question of judgment and leadership and intelligence when the President decides to put a tiny oil rich slavery supporting country in charge of our ports. It's as simple a that. Or maybe it's just your popular refrain - "it was Clinton's fault."

As I concluded guilt by association. What about the Keeneland Sales organization, the breeders, the race tracks, the governors and the senators, the airports, the airplane builders, etc. that allow the tiny rich oil slavery supporting country to do business with them? It seems Americans want to do business with that tiny oil rich slavery supporting country so it seems the president is representing his constiuents.

I have a problem with any foreign country being responsible for our ports, even that human right violating country of China.

[Lefty]

Yes, it was, and as part of the deal, he GAVE them top secret military and computer technology that is now being used against our best interests.
Clinton was consistent - everything he touched turned to ____!
Let me guess the word. Is there a prize? Let's see, excrement, feces? Nuts, I give up.

[PlanB]

From a financial view Dubai is A+. I see no reason why they shouldn't
do more business with the USA, although not the port deal. In the last
2 years, the increased oil revenue has given the oil producers over $400B
more dollars. Dubai is investing much of its wealth to grow economically,
diversifying from just oil stuff. Now that's good.

[Secretariat]

As I concluded guilt by association. What about the Keeneland Sales organization, the breeders, the race tracks, the governors and the senators, the airports, the airplane builders, etc. that allow the tiny rich oil slavery supporting country to do business with them? It seems Americans want to do business with that tiny oil rich slavery supporting country so it seems the president is representing his constiuents.

I have a problem with any foreign country being responsible for our ports, even that human right violating country of China.

I have serious problems with any organization that associates with slave states, but when it is the US government and taxpayer money involved, then that it is my money directly.

And when it comes to China, I have been complaining since Nixon opened up commie China while Nam was going on and China ws supplying weaponry to North Vietnam. The fact that Clinton made a poor decision on China like the GOP presidents before him is no reason to continue using this ridiculous excuse heard here over and over. "Clinton did it" and it was horrible - therefore, because he did this horrible thing, we should continue doing this horrible thing. Sorry, its the poorest logic in the world. It indicates the weakest of leadership.

[Show Me the Wire]

I have serious problems with any organization that associates with slave states, but when it is the US government and taxpayer money involved, then that it is my money directly.

And when it comes to China, I have been complaining since Nixon opened up commie China while Nam was going on and China ws supplying weaponry to North Vietnam. The fact that Clinton made a poor decision on China like the GOP presidents before him is no reason to continue using this ridiculous excuse heard here over and over. "Clinton did it" and it was horrible - therefore, because he did this horrible thing, we should continue doing this horrible thing. Sorry, its the poorest logic in the world. It indicates the weakest of leadership.

Fine that is your opinion, but it seems you are in the minority about doing business with the UAE.

My point is the type of behavior of imposing U.S. standards upon foreign sovereign governments is exactly what you claim causes ill will to the U.S. I understand you explained the alleged involuntary servitude matter was morally repugnant to you.

However, as you see there are many others that do not share your morals and want to do business with the UAE. It has nothing to do with weak leadership skills of the President and every thing to do with honoring the majority's wishes to continue to do business with the UAE.

Your inital post attempted to make President Bush a co-conspirator in the alleged involuntary servitude matter. That is simply not true.

I agree about China. The knock on Clinton regarding China is the highly sensitive data and technology China stole from us under his watch.