UAE Taking Over American Ports !

Originally posted by Fiverz

Whoa, good research.

thanks, and good find on that MARAD info.

Unfortunately, though, I still know very little about the maritime industry, or even exactly what they do. But, having read the mission statement , and knowing just how poorly Bush appointees generally do their jobs, I think I can venture a guess about the overall scheme they seem to be setting up.

Maritime services in this country will, in fact, continue to handle imports/ exports in an efficient manner. Safety precautions may be thrown to the wind, and whatever safety nets are in place for the workers will likely deteriorate, but the big guys will continue to make their money. We won't hear about any changes until, a, someone, or, better yet, several people are hurt- then Paula Zahn, or the new, castrated Anderson Cooper will make it a human interest filler story- or, b, a ship is sunk, or something equally destructive, and a lot of cargo is lost- then, maybe, CNBC will talk about it.

A natural disaster or terrorism will strike a port. Americans caught in the midst of whichever catastrophe will expect all those fancy emergency services outlined in the mission statement, but, due to budgetary cuts, nobody will be properly funded, and lots of people will die. If it's a natural disaster, there will be hearings, and "MARAD- Brownie" will be fired (but given a cushy job as a 'consultant'); if it's terrorism, we have another war, in which to send our soldiers, or, God forbid, 'draftees,' to fight and/or die.

It's simple, really.

Of course, I reeeeeaaaaally hope I'm wrong.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by HarlemHottie]

So is the UAE the only suitable bidder on these ports? I can't believe no one else wanted in on the opportunity.

I wonder if the UAE would tolerate a Longshoreman strike?

Originally posted by Kaotik68
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.

Isn't that amazing. Forget the deal, but the first President to never veto ANYTHING, not one spending measure, not one slab of pork, is going to veto this from his OWN party.

Let the GOP primary begin.

IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!
NOW!!!!
This country needs a revolution.
People need to rebel like they did in the 1960's.
Nobody protests anymore.

Here is a local news report for Tampa Bay, about the port being sold.

sptimes.com...
www.tampabaylive.com...

Something doesn't add up, Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base is close by and we sell a port to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the UAE.

Ok. heres an unbiased opinion...

I don’t think the problem is which country owns the commercial operations; it’s what kind of security requirements we impose.

The UAE vs. the British (previous owners)? Sure the UAE are from the “bad area” of the world, but generally speaking the UAE tries to be neutral—kinda like the Switzerland of the Middle East. They’ve more or less tried to be allies, mostly by just doing the business thing and not joining in on the super-anti-American side. I think 1-2 of the hijackers on 9/11 were from the UAE, but can’t condemn the entire government for that.

And the British? Last time I checked there’s a huge, disenfranchised Muslim minority in Britain that recently blew up their subways. There are bad apples everywhere—I would say the big question is whether or not you think the government is likely to help bad people infiltrate the system.

I am more scared of Britain than I am of the UAE—we’re somewhat natural enemies with Britain vs. the UAE which stands to make enormous profits and improve things in their country by being friendly with the US.


So what type of security requirements do you put on the ports? Who has oversight? If the Coast Guard has oversight it doesn’t matter who’s operating the ports—it could be Iran loading/unloading the damn crates, it’s U.S. military that inspects everything and makes sure it’s all safe.

OK Iran’s a bit of an exception to the rule, but if the rule is that you want to make the ports as safe as possible you pass a law that says no foreign company/operator can control critical transportation infrastructure—you close that industry out. Alternatively you just vastly upgrade the security requirements.

I think we’re only marginally less safe with the UAE as the operator, and the margin is very thin. Also, we do need to reward allies in the Middle East with such opportunities otherwise what’s the point in them helping us over there? If you’re going to trample over people to get them as allies you shouldn’t shut them out, although there are other ways of granting them rewards for being allies.

In the end, though, it’s a big political victory in the sense that the people in the Middle East—not the governments or power groups, but the everyday person—will see that the US is working with a Muslim country and giving it (seemingly) important powers. If this is rejected than those people will think we’re hypocrites/racists/insert term here that describes us as not liking Muslims. Even though this may already be the case.

Again, I think the important security is done by the U.S. government regardless of who the operator is. Though not done well.

I don’t know what the costs are of improving security at the ports, all I know is that we haven’t done it. Ruling out the thought that our government is just bat-# stupid/crazy (biggest mistake anyone can make about any government) it leads me to believe that the costs involved in improving security are onerous to the point where improving security in other areas might help more. The fact that the Democrats haven’t made a much bigger issue out of it (i.e. actually proposing plans to the public) reinforces that thought because it is such a clear-cut way for them to beat out the Republicans. That’s my gut take without having done any research…

Peace

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
So is the UAE the only suitable bidder on these ports? I can't believe no one else wanted in on the opportunity.

I wonder if the UAE would tolerate a Longshoreman strike?

The only other bidder was Ports of Singapore. Another country owned corporation.

This is being blown way out of proportion for political reasons only. The ports are already run by a British company. UAE purchasing the British company is a capital transaction only. The ports will still be operated by American longshoremen. The security will still be handled by the US Coast Guard. Inspections will still be controlled by US Customs.

If a terrorist tries to ship a nuclear device through one of these ports, it will not matter who the controlling company is. Most likely the crew of the cargo ship won't know it's there. The device would most likely be detonated as soon as the ship reaches port.

The fact that he did not know about this does not make him ultimately responsible for this decision. We have continually stated that our ports are our nations weakest link to preventing a disaster from nuclear weapons and terrorists. How can anyone on this board be for a foreign government to control our largest ports especially a foreign government that is located ion the middle east. Really people...are we begging for another terrorist attack? Did GWB know about the BILLION DOLLAR deal ahead of time? maybe not, but a BILLION DOLLAR$ was definitely part of the motivation to sell out our Countries ports to a nuclear threat!

Originally posted by afeent1
If a terrorist tries to ship a nuclear device through one of these ports, it will not matter who the controlling company is. Most likely the crew of the cargo ship won't know it's there. The device would most likely be detonated as soon as the ship reaches port.

The only way to get close enough to the shore is through the coast guard.

The port owner will gain first hand experience and detailed knowledge on the coast guard's procedures and schedules.
Then they can determine when the best time to sneak a boat loaded with a nuke through to the port city.

Now explain again to us how "it will not matter who the controlling company is."

[edit on 22-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

Originally posted by RANT

Isn't that amazing. Forget the deal, but the first President to never veto ANYTHING, not one spending measure, not one slab of pork, is going to veto this from his OWN party.

Let the GOP primary begin.

The UAE has been well known to have ties with terrorism and now our own president that created the Patriot Act and have increased the government to fight terrorism is in favor of these people.

All for money and profits now we as good Americans should be nice and stop been racist against the Arab firm.

Give me a frickin break.

From the Washington Post:
www.washingtonpost.com...

(from page 2)

Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold . . .

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine -- especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies.

This boggles my mind... what does this really mean? I'm all for strengthening trusted relationships with foreign countries, but giving them administrative control of US ports seems almost surreal. And apparently this has been going for some time. Perhaps this thread should continue in the NWO forum!

Interesting too that this story first hit the newswires on the very day of Cheney's "shot heard around the world".

Although I have my own, probably factually unfounded suspicions, which I've made clear, I do understand the point that people are making about the contracts going to a foreign company, whether its Britain, China, or the UAE.

My point is, this should be a non-issue: a, too many Americans are out of work to be outsourcing our ports, for God's sake, and, b, for the sake of appearances, this media- savvy administration should have known how sketchy this "transaction", and their staunch defense of it, makes them look.

I think that some stock and a potential surge in patriotism, with the added bonus, maybe, of martial law delaying future elections, would certainly be enough to make this president take the heat for a few days, until the media stops covering the story.

I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but after the last five years, anything is possible with these people.

Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold

Originally posted by afeent1
If a terrorist tries to ship a nuclear device through one of these ports, it will not matter who the controlling company is. Most likely the crew of the cargo ship won't know it's there. The device would most likely be detonated as soon as the ship reaches port.

The only way to get close enough to the shore is through the coast guard.

The port owner will gain first hand experience and detailed knowledge on the coast guard's procedures and schedules.
Then they can determine when the best time to sneak a boat loaded with a nuke through to the port city.

Now explain again to us how "it will not matter who the controlling company is."

[edit on 22-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]

Sneak a boat past the Coast Guard? You have got to be kidding me!

Over 6 million trailer containers arrive by ship every year in the US. The Coast Guard doesn't even check 10%. They are only going to go after a vessel if they have information of a known threat. No one that wants to "sneak" a nuclear device into the country has to worry one bit about Coast Guard monitoring.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
too many Americans are out of work to be outsourcing our ports, for God's sake, and, b,

Unionized American longshoremen are the employees that operate these ports. None of them are being displaced.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
So is the UAE the only suitable bidder on these ports? I can't believe no one else wanted in on the opportunity.

This was a business transaction, between the London based company and the Dubai based one, not an auction. Are you suggesting that the london company figured its in their corporate greedy interests to sell for less???

I wonder if the UAE would tolerate a Longshoreman strike?

No company ever tolerates a strike. What does this matter? They won't be working for the UAE or the Dubai based company, its not like this means the UAE owns the ports and arab law is in effect or something.

zerotolerance
People need to rebel like they did in the 1960's.
Nobody protests anymore.

You want people to protest in favour of racism, nationalization of industry and property, government control of the market, and fear-mongering? You're about 30 years off on your chronology there.

kaotik68
Please refrain from posting if you cannot come up with anything better than the "racism card". I am not a racist

Oh boo hoo, you don't want to be seen as a racist, even though your entire idea here is that 'dirty arabs can't be trusted, they're all terrrorists'.

And your statement "Our own government investigated them"....LMFAO......you really believe that that is ok

In case you didn't notice, a government investigation is exactly what you are asking for.

Do you live in the US?

Yes, I live in the US and I am disheartend that the American public is still so strongly motivated by racist xenophobia.

, the fact is it is not a good idea security wise for our country. Can you imagine the security ramifications?

OMG you're right, those evil arabs, they're born with suicide belts!

You will find dishonest people everywhere, so who's to say that a terrorist organization will not infiltrate through the UAE company and slip into the country

Please explain why the London company was somehow immune from this?
The IRA could've just as easily infiltrated them, and with the large populations of sympathetic irish dock workers in NY and Boston, both major ports, would've had a hell of an easier time carrying out an attack. But no one was worried about foreigners owning the ports until those foreigners weren't anglos.

what did you guys think the American public would do when this was publicized? They are going to cry foul,

Then let them cry. Everyone in the world that thinks they've gotten the bad end of a global business deal cries and whines about it not being 'fair'. Too bad. This is a perfectly legal sale to a company that has been investaged by the government and found to be perfectly clean.

Please look past all the racial references

If they weren't arab, there wouldn't be a problem. The london company wasn't an arab company, and none of us have ever even heard about them until now. Race is the only issue here, its the only issue that anyone against this sale has been able to raise.

Murcielago
so tell me why do we want them owning OUR ports.

It doesn't matter if you want them to or not. These are things that are traded on the open market, you don't even have a right to be telling anyone whether or not they can sell something that they own, least of all when no one can cite any actual problem with this company, other than it being from 'evil arabic lands, where the desert winds howl with menance and evil horsemen plant bombs in the night".

...or at least hold it for 45 days while theres an investigation into the UAE companies...Which I think is the very least the Pres should do

Why? The company was investigated. There was no security problem with it. There's no reason to do any of this.

I feel like everyday we loose a little of the US...and not from enemy countries or terrorists...but to foreign companies & immigration.

Guess what, the US just lost nothing. A foreign company sold part of itself to another foreign company.

Its Very frustrating!

People only became frustrated when the foreigners were 'scary'.

ThichHeaded
back during WW II Prescot Bush was employed at a Nazi bank and nothing was done

Prescott wasn't employed by a nazi bank, he was on the board of directors of a company that hade some stakes in a german company. Last time I checked, only one of his son's became a US president, and that one fought against the Axis and was nearly killed in doing so.

fiverz
It's the fact that it's a GOVERNMENT OWNED AND OPERATED company. The previous British companies were private

If anything a private company is more dangerous to US interests than an allied government. A private company is only motivated by the profit motive, whereas another country has a whole slew of interests, least of which is being freindly with the US. Why in the world is a private, unaccountable corporate entity so much prefered to a public government? An ally that is taking a lot of flack merely for being an ally nonetheless!??

The theory is that any threats or ideologies originating from the UAE now have a dedicated, red tape-free point of entry to the U.S.

Hardly. What ideas have originated from the United Arab Emirates recently anyway? Also, in england, you can readily find large numbers of violent, radical, militant clerics openly calling for the destruction of the US, and indeed the West, and the liberal-democratic government there is powerless to do anything to stop them. What do you think that the emirs and kings int the UAE are going to do with someone that is creating problems for them internally? Put them in charge of a highly politicized and public position, such as in this company? Or put electrodes to their testicles, a bag over their head, and beat them with sticks?

Why should anyone other than America be in control of Our ports?

I know, those god-damned english, where do they get off? We should bomb them or something, I mean, who do they think they are, purchasing something we are selling? Bastards.

harlemhottie
There is definitely something fishy going on here...

Those are the problems and issues that should be getting attention, press, and bi-partisan support. BUt they're not, because everyone is freaked out about arabs.

one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn

My god! How can we let such islamic extremists as a guy with the name Dave Sanborn obviously has to be, to get their evil tentacles on our ports! Right there is probably going to be the reason why nothing comes of this. The American public is going to see that most of the guys actually operating this company are anglos instead of arabs, and then they're going to let it drop.

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

Thats because he's being realistic. It is just a transaction. The control of these ports has changed numerous times over the decades. This particular company did everything it was supposed to, and then some, it was investigated precisely how its supposed to be investigated, and then some, and there wasn't a single problem with it. OH WAIT! THEY"RE ARABS! HOLD THE PHONE! If the US Congress actually passed a special law, interfereing with prefectly legitimate global trade, just because of the race of the buyers, that'd be horrible. Clearly its worth a veto. Of course, I'll agree that there seems to be something else going on behind the scenes, but if the public actually showed concern about that sort of stuff, forget this deal, they'd be opposed to hundreds more! I mean, the public would have to actually pay attention or something!

yes this is all very disturbing. The congress needs to step up and take over the bush administration. The bushes are some greedy sob's and in the process of there control they mangaged to kill thousands of americans at home and abroad all in the name of oil-$$$. I wish the people of america can really stand by each other and unite to change the phase/direction of our nation. It is great but it's getting out of hand. Who the f*#k does the pres think he is. He is just one man and we all know he is not the one really in control. We need help and we need to have our revolution. We are good people but the governments are the evil ones. I feel helpless but i want to make a difference...this is all sad and disturbing

Bush is just doing what Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz tell him he has to do. These Zionist f**ks orchestrate most everything in this country. When the UAE based company somehow allows terrorists [Mossad agents painting the Arabs out as our enemies] we as Americans will then point our fingers to those nasty Arabs and want justice again. This is an old script people. We've all seen this movie before.

This is very disturbing indeed, the president that based his presidency on fear of terrorists, and lets these ports get purchased by a state owned company? I dont care about the mistakes of previous administrations selling them to a private company. Thats bad enough, but this is different

This administration has made America fearfull of Arab Terrorists period. Not Irish Terrorists, not Chinese, or black terrorists (I think 911 was false flag anyway) but make no mistake, they made the Arabs the fall guy.

This crazy administration does all this, burns up huge amounts of our money we work for. kills our kids and all those kids in the middle east and then lets our ports gets sold to the UAE?

I have seen stuff that would boggle you mind and read some really crazy malarky lately, but this is the straw that breaks the camels back (no pun intented) I want my country back.

Originally posted by afeent1
Sneak a boat past the Coast Guard? You have got to be kidding me!

Over 6 million trailer containers arrive by ship every year in the US. The Coast Guard doesn't even check 10%. They are only going to go after a vessel if they have information of a known threat. No one that wants to "sneak" a nuclear device into the country has to worry one bit about Coast Guard monitoring.

So your stance is:
Since the security of our ports is already disgracefully insufficant then go ahead and let the UAE, an organization with known ties to terrorism, take over too.
Wonderful professor, you should work for Homeland Security.

If anything good comes from this whole mess, maybe it will be increased port inspections, which people have been screaming about since 911.

====

And Nygdan - I don't think anybody cares what Race they are. This is an organization with past ties, financial and otherwise, to terrorists.
Their race is a moot point, but I can see you'd love to make it the focal point.
Why are people defending this for Bush? So his aids can make their money on the investment? I'm not getting rich from this "transaction", I'm just getting an over-all insecure feeling from the whole deal.

Right now... there are real terrorists, rubbing their hands together planning, applying for jobs at this company overseeing the ports. The terrorists aren't dumb, they can use this to their advantage in the future.
It is the sheep of this country who are dumb, and don't have the diabolical mind that these terrorists have.
The world is not suddenly a utopia of free trade and no terror. The world is not full of bunny slippers and daisys. Wake up, there are alot of people who will never be happy, no matter how many "foreign contracts" you allow them.

why can't our government control our own ports? This is all very strange. I can image the amount of crap that comes to america everyday. We just need some huge boat terminal scanners off the coast so every freakn boat must go through and get scanned. There is something really fishy going on and i cannot put into words the amount of anger i have. We have all this technology spending mad cash on everything and we can't even secure our ports. This is horrendous! See bush really believes he can do what ever the hell he wants. Saying he'll veto anything congress sends him. WTF! When did this gov turn into a dictatorship. HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO GO NOW! and his dad...maan should of been gone along time ago. These men are just bad freakn news. We need to unite people...what can we do?