| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 975
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:04 pm: | 
|
DP World is a state owned corporation.
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/BushUAEPortsKO.asx
UAE refused to help with the 9-11 financial investigation "FOllow the money"-- and the trail stopped at UAE.
The UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering….
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html
The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. . . . .
Same thing with the ports deal. "But how can Bush sell control over our ports to a company based in a state that has much stronger ties to Al Qaeda, 9/11, and international terrorism than Iraq ever did?" Because he's got friends who are going to make a killing off this, and their killing is more important to them than any killing of American citizens that might get done as a result of compromising American national security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364 x475764
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army
There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:
has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.
According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/
The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE.
http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/dirty-little-secret-behind-uae-port.html
The "Port Service Company" receives, manifests, loads, offloads, and transfers the containers. Normally, this is monitored for drugs -- but there are "holes." The "Port Service Company" has the "expertise" (in a "perverse kind of way") to know where the holes are.
Second, the "Port Service Company" frequently prepares the manifest. This is the legal document ennumerating what the ship is carrying, shipper, recipient, port on loaded, port to be off loaded. This guides (or misguides) the inspection.
Third, frequently the "Port Service Company" performs "ship chandlering" - that's the sale of consumables and low level spare parts. This is not inventoried or manifested.
Fourth, merchant mariners' documents. It is fairly easy to enter a country on "Merchant Mariner's Documents" (functions like a mini-passport). No visa requirements if you stay within some distance of the port. This is popular with drug dealers - and could be a route for terrorists. In many countries a "Port Service Company" can issue "documents" (note - these are not Master, Mate, Pilot, Engineer, Radio Officer licenses or "Competency Documents") which are good enough to get you off of the ship while it's in port.
Historically - in my active duty days - we were looking for drug smugglers. But these techniques could work with terrorists and dirty bombs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364 x481615
July, 2001, UAE: Osama Bin Laden stays at hospital in Dubai, UAE
You can get the summary of this historical FACT here: Osama in UAE July 2001
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22osama+bin+laden%22+Dubai+UAE+hospita l+2001&btnG=Search
This was only 2 months before 9/11. Keep in mind, Osama Bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist in the world at that time. So now we are supposed to turn over control of our ports to this country, UAE, which aided the mastermind behind 9/11!?
There is so much that doesn't make sense here. Almost makes me think our leaders were involved in 9/11. Afterall, the CIA did meet with Osama during his stay in Dubai in July 2001. Oh, and the hospital was an American hospital. Now this port sale?
This changes everything.
Recap--
1) The DP world company is owned and controlled by the UAE government. This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign government.
2) The port authority would be given advance notice of military shipments.
3) UAE is the origin of 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.
4) The government of UAE & the Taliban.
6) This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign government.
7) The UAE supported/supports nuclear weapons technology and secrets to Iran and North Korea.
7) The UAE is a travel hub for Bin Laden's operatives. OBL stayed in a UAE hospital in 2001.
8) The UAE financed BCCI related to Iran-Contra.
Had enough?
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Of your hysteria, more than enough. Your world view is as simplistic as W's. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 112
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 6:48 am: |
|
From the beginning, Bush has operated a foreign policy that completely disregards nuance or fairness. If there is a way to create a simplistic picture and use it drive home their POV it was part of their bag of tricks. When it was a little over the top, the White House would simply have a surrogate (Rush, Hannity) push the point.
In a world run by adults, we would have questioned:
Iraq was tied to 9/11
Iraq had WMDs
Chalibi is our friend
Kofi Annan is corrupt and behind the oil-for-food scandal
Castro needs to be shunned
Afghanistan was bad but now is good
Democracy is worth fighting for in Iraq, but completely different in Palestine and Bolivia
And I could go on. Name your own. And I'm not counting anything on the home front.
The fact that we MIGHT be oversimplifying this issue might have merit. But I think Bush has a lot to answer for as to why there would be an oversimplification. It takes a lot of nerve to ask us to finally have some nuance on this issue.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2577
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Ethnic profiling this aint. You can't "profile" a nation state. You can look at it's policies. That is just a red herring.
Does UAE recognize Israel? I actually don't know.
Curious - what's Rush saying about this?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5218
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:34 am: |
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/21/port.europe/
As I'm reading more about the security issue involved in ports, one has to conclude that both sides of the aisle should let the sale go through if indeed security won't be compromised simply because Arabs own the company (rather than Brits or Danes) that has it's security functions under US government agency oversight.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1585
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
themp: do a quick google search and you'll see that the UAE not only does not recognize Israel, they were one of only three countries as of Sept. 11, 2001, to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's official government. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 817
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
kendalbill-
Do you think your post even deseves a response?
who has the time....
-SLK |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
The FACTS are starting to trickle out.
A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.
Horselips.
Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Given George Bush's black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us worldview, you don't find it strange that he didn't think this "purchase" would require a little finessing in the PR department? Maybe a little something else besides "trust us, we looked into it..." Did he really not think there would be a backlash? Or did he just not care? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4798
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 1:18 pm: |
|
... I can't believe so many, know so little, about so much!
This issue is just one more example of the strong leadership, and one more reason why President George W. Bush will be recognized by the end of this decade as one of the greatest president's in the history of our nation... |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Thanks for that, Art.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8730
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Art's just fighting the good fight for the world's least democratic nation. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 760
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Why should ANY foreign-based company be allowed to run key US infrastructure operations? We can't do this ourselves, better? Why have we gotten to the point that we have to engage foreign expertise to manage our own basic operations?
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2580
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
I hear Karl Rove is praying Cheney will shoot another old buzzard this weekend. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 113
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
SLK: I don't know if my last message deserves a response-- but you did.
Question: this change occured when the UAE company purchased P&O. Can anyone shed any light on whether we can stop the transfer anyway? How would that work? And if we have to quickly transition to another company, whose to say there wouldn't be issues where security would be breached in the transition? Is it safer to allow the change in ownership and then work to secure the ports going forward?
And back to SLK: I do find some of the outcry simplistic-- but understandable. All I'm saying is that Bush can't argue one- no many- points with the debate ending "9/11" or "war on terror" and then expect everyone to trust a nuanced, but maybe correct, position on this. Sorry. I would think Rove would have known that. Or you.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5221
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
kendalbill -- I believe anytime a foreign company and especially foreign government wishes to buy US assets (or in this case leasing the right to operate a port) that it goes through agency reviews at Treasury, Pentagon, probably Homeland and Commerce. If the deal doesn't pass the review, it doesn't happen. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8731
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
So four Michael Browns are managing the review. That inspires confidence. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3056
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Latest news on AP: Bush did not even know about the deal being approved until after it was already approved by the Adminstration.
Wonder who forgot to tell the Boss about this one? Or perhaps they thought it was not important enough to bother him with? Major faux pas!
Art: I'll lay you even money that the majority of historians will not recognize W as one of the greatest pres's in the history of our nation. In fact, I bet that not even the majority of Americans will see him in that light in 2010. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3065
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
...If the deal doesn't pass the review, it doesn't happen...
What kind of assurance is that?
What if the review is insufficient? What if the people doing the review are as beholden to industry as your typical Bush administration flack? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 820
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
There is a part of me that can't wait until 2009 so we can move these discussions forward, if applicable. The anti-Bush refuse to see beyond their own hatred... |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 114
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
No, I'm sure there is a review and I'm sure we can say no. But if we do -- what happens? I don't imagine one company leaves on friday and a new one comes in on Monday. How would it work? We are talking about managing some major ports, and I would think that people involved in security would try to limit turnover and transition as much as anything.
Don't get me wrong, I see this as another example of W not keeping both hands on the wheel....but all of this outcry only means something if the alternative makes sense. If rejecting the deal leads to 6 months of half- assed, unexpected transition (and security breaches) to another company that doesn't do a good job and costs more but happens to be Dutch-- well, I'm not feeling all that much more safe. The real problem is that we have not been made aware of measures being made to make ports safe- whoever manages it. |
Pippi
Supporter
Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 22, 2006
WASHINGTON
It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.
Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.
What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?
It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)
Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.
Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"
Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.
"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.
The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal, the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it — even conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture and warrantless snooping.
Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.
Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.
A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.
Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?
In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.
One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.
Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?
As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.
Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports. |
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Makes a change from Halliburton. |
Nob
Citizen
Username: Nob
Post Number: 101
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:40 pm: |
|
How long before Condi says " "I don't think anyone could have expected that they'd hide a nuclear device in a shipping container...""............hope Jack Bauer is real!!! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5222
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:53 pm: |
|
notehead -- I'm sure we can assure you if Congress conducts a review.
If this one doesn't pan out and Democrats go on a roll, we can toss the Chinese out of the Port of Los Angeles and put an efficient state-owned entity in charge. Then we can eliminate bar codes that were a sticking point to laying off unionized longshoremen (some who had...uh....challenges....in passing the background checks they bitched about after they were instituted post 9/11) and re-employ the patriotic 'base.' |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
This whole issue is based on little more than pandering to the xenophobia that cuts across both political parties.
According to the Financial Times, there are already two firms owned by foreign goverments with port operations in the U.S. China Shipping has a terminal in the Port of Los Angeles and APL, which is owned by the Singapore's state-owned NOL, has a terminal in Oakland.
The FT goes on to point out that the U.S. P&O ports are not as profitable as non-U.S. ports due to restrictive work practices imposed by the U.S. longshore unions. In fact, Hutchison Ports, the world's largest port operator, already refuses to invest in the U.S. because its executives are skeptical of how the container ports industry is organized.
IMHO, reneging on the approval will actually make the U.S. less secure in the long run, since it damages the reputation of the U.S. as a safe and predictable place to do business. If the U.S. cannot be trusted to meet its committments to a simple investor, why should anyone trust it to meet larger military or aid committments extended to foreign governments whose help it needs in fighting terrorism?
Besides, the U.S. government has unfortunately become dependent on foreign capital inflows to balance its budget. Anything that makes the country less attractive to investors ultimately means higher taxes and/or less money to spend on Defense, Homeland Security and all the other necessities of modern life. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4396
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Well neither China nor Singapore is on anyone's list of countries that might sneak a nuke in to one of our ports. China doesn't need a shipping container to deliver one.
It's not that it's foreign firms, it's the Islamist connection. And the profitability argument probably flies with Bush & Cheney, which is why they're in trouble on this. Most people aren't going to hear "but the arabs can make more money while they're at it" and say "oh, in THAT case..."! |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:35 am: |
|
From an AP story:
President Bush is making a "huge mistake" defending a deal for a Middle Eastern company to manage American ports.
--Rep Tom DeLay (!)
"When it's a matter of national security, the president will be overturned," DeLay told an audience of Houston real estate executives at a campaign stop. "We will overturn it within the next few weeks."
____________________________
Meanwhile of course, all "Holy Hell" is breaking loose in Iraq in the wake of the Shiite Mosque bombing. Dozens dead, (so far) including Inmans, dozens of Sunni Mosques attacked.
And of course the "Cartoon madness" continues.
Every time I hear that story I think of the "cartoon" of the "biological weapons" truck that Powell used at the UN in his Powerpoint presentation to help get us into this Iraq mightmare. -We couldn't even get a photo of a real truck and yet nobody blinked.
All this Shiite just gets better and better every week. So much of it seemed predictable and yet you can't make it up.
"Democracy is messy"
"We may have misunderestimated things"
-George Bush
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8741
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:39 am: |
|
Quote:TERROR LINKS IN DUBAI'S PAST
The United Arab Emirates has not had a major terrorist attack. But its largest city, Dubai, is a banking center that is thought to attract funds from groups such as al-Qaida. Some of Dubai's brushes with terror groups:
• In 2004, Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a Pakistani suspected of training thousands of al-Qaida fighters, was arrested in the UAE and turned over to officials in his homeland.
• In 2002, Emirati authorities arrested and turned over to the United States Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. UAE officials said he had planned to attack economic targets in the Emirates. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a Yemeni court.
• The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
• A 2004 report from the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks found 11 Saudi hijackers had traveled to the U.S. via the airport in Dubai.
• Osama bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received a Dubai bank transfer of $15,000 two days before 9/11 and then left for Pakistan, where he was arrested in 2003.
• Marwan Al-Shehhi, a UAE citizen and one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, received $100,000 via the UAE. Another Sept. 11 hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.
-- Associated Press
My gut feeling is Bush is pressing this because he needs continued use of Dubai to house planes and ships for the upcoming invasion of Iran and this is the price we need to pay. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi folks. I'm an old reader but a new poster. There are some folks on this thread that remind me of classic trolls. I simply cannot believe, that they believe, what they are saying. I remember about 1994 or so when a certain ilk started to voice how much they hated Bill Clinton, and I would ask them honestly, why do you hate this guy so much? I'd like to know, so I can hate him too. The answers I got didn't let me in on the joke. Nobody could give me a reason that made any sense. Then one day I read, yes, I actually read the Starr Report and realized that we were being conned as a nation. The Starr Report cost over 60 million dollars of tax payer (remember it's your money) to produce. After reading the report I no longer considered myself a Republican. If you've never read the Starr Report take a couple hours and do so. I think it will change your perception of our current reality more than you can imagine. It was a work of pure bamboozlement that set the stage for where we are today. The people who perpetrated this nonsense on us are basically the people in power in the Republican majority today. I'd like to ask a question that's truly not rhetorical. Posters like Scrotis Lo Knows and others (and please I'm not calling you a troll at all), please tell me on what basis do you consider the Bush Administration a success at all? What have they done right? I'm an open minded person who has the ideology of a pre 1994 or so Republican, but for the love of Mike, or I should say for the love of this country, I cannot see anything that these people in power have done right. Maybe lowering the tax on dividends and capital gains to 15%, but that's literally all I can think of that hasn't been a fiasco. Seriously, educate me on exactly what it is that would make you believe in and put your faith in the Bush Administration. I just don't get it.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3244
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Well said, ae35unit.
I love what Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee just asked the Assistant Treasury Secy in the current hearings about the port purchases.
Words to the effect of:
"Sir, don't you think someone could have said,
'Gee, this is maybe something we should bring to a Congressional committee to discuss...?'
Of course, the answer was some kind of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo about protocols and procedures.
Y'all should listen up!!
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 405
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I'll pitch in on this thread since it's far more interesting/active and repeat:
Since the complainers and attackers have all failed to do their own research before proceeding with racist rants regarding Arabs (but denying it's racist), I'll make this slightly easier for you, and maybe next time you will think twice before you rush to judgement, or put your real thoughts in writing for all to see, or trust a US Congressman for your Data/Information:
"In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them."
www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1161466,00.html |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8749
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
The difference between running and owning is largely irrelevant. The trouble is that a nation known to have been penetrated by terrorists --known to have fully supported the Taliban, by the way -- will be privvy to security plans for the ports. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 407
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Dave, why is the difference between owning/running irrelevant?
The cities of Detroit, Jersey City, Buffalo, and Arlington have all been penetrated by terrorist networks. Shall we shut these communities down? Lots of Terror cash flowed through Citibank, I think they should be boxed out of all US Treasury auctions.
Russia had several thousand Nuclear warheads pointed directly at us for decades, perhaps we should refuse to do business with Russian companies?
Brazil is an strong supporter of the Chavez Goverment in Venezuala, perhaps we should shut them down too?
China has a comparable Human Rights record to the old Taliban, so while we're at it, lets throw up a barrier there too.....
I feel safer just SAYING this stuff! Glad I got it off my chest.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4398
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Here's my prediction on how this is going to go down. After a big furor, the deal will be dropped, and a week or so later it will quietly be announced that the port deal is going to an American firm, one with long-standing ties to the administration, and it will turn out to be a sweetheart deal. I don't want to say "Halliburton," but you get the idea.
Call it the "Harriet Myers" approach: Figure out what you really want to do, then in its place do something so outrageous that even your allies are against it. Pull back your initial nominee and then your real first choice sails on through. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 409
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Very interesting thought Tom.... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3256
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
tom: that's sort of like a smokescreen, don't you think? Create an outrageous scenario, get everyone all upset, then "compromise." Besides, the issue of Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby and possible criminal behavior of his "superiors" becomes ancient history. Someone has a genius for manipulation of our national attention, and I think I know who it is.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
GWB, the supposed stooge?
Or, the real Dr. Mabuse?
jd |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 116
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Personally, after the initial shock I can understand that Dubai Ports is probably not a security threat. Great. But emotionally--- forget it.
Gov. Kean said in the Ledger that the problem is you can explain why this deal makes sense in 20 minutes, but someone can explain why its wrong in 5 seconds. He says that the deal will die for political reasons. I think he's dead on.
And for all of you beating the drum about how this is racist-- I think its time to cool it. Think the Arab world will take offense at an outcry about this deal? Maybe it started when we chose to overlook the Geneva Conventions once we started detaining and torturing Arabs and Muslims. We've got a lot of work to do--
I think it completely natural that our community, after 9/11, would want to have some questions answered about this deal. I think its common sense. And I think its offensive to call it racism. I'm not a big fan of political correctness, but is there anything worse than cynical, opportunistic political correctness?
What is so wrong about a 45 day review period? |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Anyone want to guess who said the following:
"Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."
Keeping in mind that the UAE has known ties to Osama, and it's a UAE GOVERNMENT-owned company purchasing our ports.
Really, how can Bush get away with saying things like the above over and over and over again and then think something like this is kosher?!
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5229
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:59 pm: |
|
RL -- you comparison is faulty. Because people terrorists operate out of Dubai doesn't mean they have 'ties' as Bush means it. The Russian Mob has operated for years out of NYC. Did Clinton and Bush have 'ties' to them? UAE has arrested terrorists. They've enacted banking reforms. They are active in the war against terror, not for it. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 979
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:42 pm: |
|
UAE is a front for Al"Q".
Saudi Arabia is a front for Al"Q".
Al "Q" attacked us on 9-11.
The Bush Famliy/Administration does "BIDNezz" with Fronts for Al "Q".
I dont want a front for Al "Q" doing anything for the US.
For me its not about security-- or race. Its about the Bush Family connection to the attackers on 9-11. As time goes on, more & more these connections grow, and become clearer. Internationally more & more people are talking about these connections, many of them think that Bush Co. Let 9-11 happen.
Why is the Bush family in bed with the folks who brought us 9-11? Why does the Bush family continue to work with countries that supported the terrorism on 9-11. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5234
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:28 pm: |
|
I'm long on Alcoa. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 980
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Doing business with states that supported the attackers of 9-11 is not Alcoa hat time. Its called history.
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 298
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 12:17 am: |
|
Keep scouring the grassy knoll foj...tht 2nd gunman is there somewhere. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10791
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
Dubai is one of the most colorful places on earth. They are probably the most capitalistic place around, realizing that since they don't have much oil revenue they had to become a trading center.
The Emir practices a very tolerant, almost relaxed form of Islam. They are tolerant of Christians, short of Evangilism (there are at least six Christian churches there operating openly). By the same token more extreme Islam is tolerated, up to the point of criticising the Emir or causing civil unrest.
Their kind of free flowing enviornment is what scares me about the Dubai PW purchase of port operating rights here. It would be easy for a militant to infiltrate the company and obtain all sorts of information, including security plans and military cargo movements.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5243
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Why would it be easy to infiltrate this company and get this information and disseminate versus another company? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10795
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
The rather freewheeling business culture in Dubai and the willingness of the Emir to play both ends against the middle. Also, while I am sure I will be denounced as racist, the fact the company is Arab makes it easier for an Islamist to fit in, especially a compedent Islamist.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4411
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Though there's nothing racist about that conclusion at all. People are more comfortable dealing with people who are like them; so an American doing the hiring is going to be more comfortable bringing on other Americans. An Englishman will be more inclined to bring other Englishmen on board. And an Arab will hire other Arabs. And if that person in turn has hiring responsibility, it runs down the chain. Thereby increasing the odds of the bad actor getting in. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10797
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
It isn't even necessary to have a "spy" in the US. I am sure that every shipment is tracked by computer and the information is available in Dubai, as will be the security information. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Bad actors in London too.
"Hi, before I unsuccessfully tried to blow up my shoe on a transatlantic flight , I was in the management training program at the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co."
 |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10798
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Sure, P&O is going to hire Mr. Reed.  |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Well not now Bob. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page