It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UAE Taking Over American Ports !

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
One last point on this issue. When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.


Yes it is, we will have to see what he does. But hey, what does he care....no more elections for him.




posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68

Originally posted by Fiverz
One last point on this issue. When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.


Yes it is, we will have to see what he does. But hey, what does he care....no more elections for him.


That's exactly my point. Kinda wierd this late in an administration. Somehow some major bucks have to be dropping into the Bush family's pockets on this deal.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Well here is the latest.....

www.cnn.com...

Bush says he will veto any attempt to stop the deal. We will see what happens next.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This really ticks Me off. Why should anyone other than America be in control of Our ports? Whoever controls Our ports will have the open opportunity to control Us. As soon as I think things couldn't get crappier... BAM! I'm blindsided. We're slowly being stripped of Our health, Our freedom, Our nation. The war in Iraq, the nightmare of illegal immigration, the handing over of Our ports? I guess this is what going to hell in a handbasket feels like.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Jeb Bush, Governor of my state, and brother to the President, said something tonight that still has me laughing, and yet crying at the same time.... "I'm sure the President is not going to make a decision based on faulty information".


OMFG!!! I can't believe he had the cohones to say that!
That crackling sound? Oh, that's just the Constitution in the fireplace...pay it no mind....

Most here know that I support the contention that the minority of arabs are the ones causing the trouble...and that's from having lived with them for a few years.

However, this is NOT a good idea,,,,and pretty much throws open the gates as far as national security is concerned.... I'm not for blocking the sale, that's really out of our area...but some legislation regarding Port security better be being drafted right now....or someone's sleeping on the job (or worse....things are going as planned). Is that goose-stepping I hear on the horizon???



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.


I think I might have the answer: DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION, dated January 24, 2006.



Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.


There is definitely something fishy going on here...



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by Fiverz
When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.


I think I might have the answer: DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION, dated January 24, 2006.



Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.


There is definitely something fishy going on here...


Whoa, good research. Among the issues that MARAD (Maritime Administration) deals with:

- drawings/plans of ships
- mariner records
- records of vessel calls and ocean trades

The mission of MARAD, directly from it's site (www.marad.dot.gov...):

"To strengthen the U.S. maritime transportation system - including infrastructure, industry and labor - to meet the economic and security needs of the Nation. MARAD programs promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of service as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD also seeks to ensure that the United States maintains adequate shipbuilding and repair services, efficient ports, effective intermodal water and land transportation systems, and reserve shipping capacity for use in time of national emergency."

- - - - -

So let me get this straight. Hire an exec from a company that is run by a foreign government to head up civilian waterway policy, then allow his company to run some of our ports? Something is, indeed, VERY fishy ... and looks like it goes deeper than buxx in Dubya's pockets. Even if this is totally benign in nature, any individual of average intelligence can connect the dots here in a very negative way.

EDIT: structure

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
OMFG...This is complete BS...Bush needs to be impeached or something.

This drunken hillbille is going to give Shipping Port Security to the UAE and

veto any bill to block it. How do we trust this man with National Security? If

this deal goes through, there is no doubt in my mind we will be attacked.

When this happens, And as the mushroom cloud rises, what excuse will he

have? What excuse will we have?

I really hope "OOPS My Bad" doesn't work this time.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
One last point on this issue. When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.

You're right Fiverz, but we can see from George Jr. himself what his priorities are:


apnews.myway.com...

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."


I have bolded the key word here. This is just a transaction to him.

The Prez will not explain why Americans are not allowed to set up their own, American-run port-administrating companies which control their own trade. The Prez will not explain that to you because A: He is not smart enough to explain anything, B: It not allowed to be discussed, and C: Shut up and quit asking stupid questions.

You mentioned the Panama canal, and shame on you for mentioning that also, because it is very unAmerican of you to do so. The PLA/CCP is our friend now, got it? Friend.

Be glad you could even FIND a nation skilled enough to operate your ports for you at all, America! Who do you think you are? The wealthiest nation on Earth? How dare you question the Prez when he wants to favor our allies with good transactions! Do you think you can run your own country's trade routes?

If you're not with Jr. and his transactions, you are against him and his transactions.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by Fiverz
One last point on this issue. When was the last time that Bush seriously threatened to veto legislation on an issue, well before the legislation was even brought up? I know he has never used the power of veto in office, it just seems a little fishy to me that he is so adamant about letting this deal pass.

You're right Fiverz, but we can see from George Jr. himself what his priorities are:


apnews.myway.com...

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."


I have bolded the key word here. This is just a transaction to him.

The Prez will not explain why Americans are not allowed to set up their own, American-run port-administrating companies which control their own trade. The Prez will not explain that to you because A: He is not smart enough to explain anything, B: It not allowed to be discussed, and C: Shut up and quit asking stupid questions.

You mentioned the Panama canal, and shame on you for mentioning that also, because it is very unAmerican of you to do so. The PLA/CCP is our friend now, got it? Friend.

Be glad you could even FIND a nation skilled enough to operate your ports for you at all, America! Who do you think you are? The wealthiest nation on Earth? How dare you question the Prez when he wants to favor our allies with good transactions! Do you think you can run your own country's trade routes?

If you're not with Jr. and his transactions, you are against him and his transactions.


Yea money seems like the obvious thing ... but still, why nominate an exec from that company to head up the governing of what that company's new acquisition will do. No ulterior motive there? Seems kinda pointless to do just for $$'s sake. Then again this prez has done alot of pointless things for $$'s sake, so who knows. Either way, it's not right.

I wonder if there's some connection with UAE and the Iranian oil bourse. Kinda like, this is a gift from Bush in exchange for UAE shunning the Iranians come time to "Ditch The Dollar". I don't know where UAE trades their oil though, or how much of an impact they could have on it ... I'll have to do some research and post back.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I think this explains plenty....




Bush aides' with business ties to Arab firm

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.



:shk:



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
If anything this is making for strange political bed-fellows. Carter supports, Frist is against...

I know little about the details but my take is unless we want to accept and join full Jihad against the muslem religion, we have show a certain amount of favor to Arab countries which are our allies. I believe the AE has been a strong friend to the US in the Arab world. We have to demostrate that we are not anti-muslem but anti-terrorist. We can't just summarily refuse business transactions just because the country is Arab. Hell, Clinton gave missle secrets to the red Chinese and nuclear secrets to the N. Koreans. No one said a word.

I think many people are just firing off half-cocked without knowing the real implications.
There are many intellectually bankrupt people who will just summarily disagree with whatever W says or does without at all weighing the substance. If W said 2+2=4 they would disagree just because W said it. I actually admire Carter for being consistant. Lord knows the rest of the libs aren't.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
This is really weird, Cheney and Bush are acting strange lately. Last week Cheney was in the spotlight, now its Bush. Something big is going to happen in the next 60 days and sure hope it has nothing to do with Ports and nukes.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
We can't just summarily refuse business transactions just because the country is Arab.

A "business transaction" is me patronizing the local Arab- owned bodega. This, my friend, is "national security." Big difference. When my safety and security is at risk, I'm not really interested in "business transactions." Do you live near any of these ports?



I think many people are just firing off half-cocked without knowing the real implications.

I find it somewhat ironic that the same person who admits to not knowing the details of the situation would accuse others of "just firing off half-cocked." I did my research and, as a NY'er, I am frighteningly aware of the implications, thankyouverymuch.

In much the same way that Cheney's position as VP enabled him to throw no-bid government contracts to Halliburton, I expect this Sanborn character to do the same.

Actual history:
9/11 = War on Terror, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq = Halliburton contracts

My fear:
??? = Continuation of WOT = DP World contracts

My primary concern (yes, a little selfish) is that NY will again serve as the 'staging ground' for that as-yet-unknown catastrophe.

All this government-sponsored terror (or, governmental stupidity and greed, leading to terror) is mentally exhausting.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
This ticks me off as well, after I support bush and his war on terror where he is SUPPOSED to be fighting thses people to keep the US free, then turns around and sell our FREAKING PORTS to UAE!?!?! what the hell?! Bush angers me becasue he will sell his nation for a few bucks....and it isnt like he desperately needs it!!!


This, if anything else, is proof of where bush's loyalty lies.....LIAR!



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Curious.

Days before this port story got started, they played that movie the Sum of All Fears on TV. If you remember the movie, the nuke was shipped in through the Baltimore port disguised as a vending machine. Later it was detonated during a football game. Not the greatest of movies, Ben Affleck just can't act.

Government plays dumb and lets terrorists wreck the Towers. Government decides to reorganize multiple agencies under one roof called DHS so it will do his bidding willingly. Prez picks toadie to run it. Then he picks another thats more complicit. DHS bungles Katrina so badly its beyond stupefying, but they did a magnificent job really (whatever). DHS toadie nows sells the idea of the UAE port sale as more important to global trade than to national security.

So Chertoff thinks global trade is more important than national security.
Funny. I didn't know his job had anything to do with the Treasury department or Federal Reserve or anything remotely related to global economics. His job is to secure the nation so that trade or anything else may continue without disruption. Thats it.

So looking back is just as suspicious as looking forward, therefore it is reasonable to assume they are getting ready to start Act 2 of the war on terror. This is their alibi to start raining hell on some folks. Nothing like fighting the good fight when you got a good reason. And if you don't have one, you make one. Clever.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Capt Proton:

I agree. I smell a convenient setup...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I'm not entirely sure how it fits in, but could this be another clue?

Dubai's ruler dies on Gold Coast, January 5.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
could this deal got though to keep watch on them? as mad as it sounds maybe they want them to do something so they have a reason to start somethine with the UAE



crazy ya? and could also give an excuse to beef up our already high military budget for homeland security such as a fleet big enough to surround the us



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
This whole port thing could be a ploy, by a lame duck president. To help the repubs in the next elections....make them seem like they won't bow down to the president on principle, and will follow the people's wishes. In the end, I bet the port sales won't pass. This gets the nation riled up too, which BushCheneyHalliburton thrives on. Calm down everybody.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join