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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well how about the possibility that they can get their hands on information about our military cargo that goes through some of the ports that they will be handling.

dawnstar gave a nice link to that information in another thread.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Here's where the story really starts to get interesting:

It was announced that a former senior executive at DP World, the company that is purchasing the shipping operations of the US ports for 6.8 BILLION, David Sanborn of Virginia, was recently appointed by the White House to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the United States Department of Transportation. Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, assures us that there's no connection between the appointment of Mr. Sanborn and the sale of the ports' operations to DP World.

There you have it: it's nothing more than the typical cronyism grown to global scale. A plain old buddy-buddy deal. Sanborn probably has been hunting with Dick Cheney. What's something little like our national security when there's money to be made? Let's not let our sovereignity come between us and profits, right?

How interesting that I learned about these facts from an Associated Press article titled: Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval .

Here's the link, if you still care:

Bush Unaware of Ports Deal

Sleep well tonight. Your president is awake.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
.
2 Years ago.
Osama Bin Laden was having tea with the UAE royals.
in.rediff.com...

What could go wrong?!


[edit on 22-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   



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'.



I didn't see anyone complaining that they are an arabic country. People are complaining about their known ties to terrorism ... something I do not agree with anyways (need more proof).




, 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!


Again, instead of directly responding to the question, you take another faux jab at arabs. What gives?




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?


It was not ... however the London-based company was PRIVATELY owned. Think about it. If we have Starbucks running a port in China, or have the U.S. gov't run a port in China ... which one do you think might be a bigger threat to Chinese security? If you fail to see this you are very ignorant of the power of foreign governments.

Also, say that company WAS owned/operated by the British government. It would be much easier for a terrorist organization/radical country to infiltrate the small UAE than it would be to infiltrate the British gov't anyways.




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.


Race is not the issue. It's giving up control to a government-run company.




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".


You are right that we have no say in it. But again, enough with the arab references ... this has nothing to do with the particular country.




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!??


You just reinforced my statement right there. Private companies are motivated by profits, gov't-run companies could have any number of interests. You answered your own question. Note that it doesn't matter WHAT country runs the company ... they all could have their own interests in mind. Look at the UAE's wealth. Do they really need American ports?




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.


His religion or race does not matter. He was a former exec of the company that is going to purchase the ports. And in his post he is the one to regulate them in the U.S. What do you fail to see here?

I congratulate you on trying to brush aside the real issue with the race card, but it's simply not the case. At least not for me ... I don't fear the UAE anymore than I fear Joe Schmo next door. I fear those radical countries that could easily garner control of UAE, control of the DP, and then control over our ports. Anyone that fails to see the possible connections here needs a refresher in grade-school logic.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
quote: kaotik68
Please refrain from posting if you cannot come up with anything better than the "racism card". I am not a racist

Response from NygDan: 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'.

Response: I never said that, you did. You are the only one here that seems to be a racist, anyone can tell that from reading your comments. So no, that is not my idea.

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

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

Response: Once again, that is not what I am asking for. Not once have I said that here. Screw an investigation, I do not want this to happen...period.

quote: Do you live in the US?

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

Response: If you are that disheartened maybe you could move to the UAE, I am sure you would be much happier there.

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

Response from NygDan: OMG you're right, those evil arabs, they're born with suicide belts!

Response: Another racial reference.......You are one of those closet racists. You will sit here and try to make other people look racist, when in fact you are racist yourself. You like to try and hide it.

quote: 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?

Response from NygDan: 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.

Response: I never said that they were not immune from it. I believe that the UAE has a more relaxed attitude when it comes to security, so I do not think that it is a good idea for this deal to go through.

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

Response from NygDan: 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.

Response: Once again ......(I have to keep telling you this, because you obviously have a problem understanding what I am saying here)..it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a legal sale or business deal, I am not disputing that and could care less about that. It has to do with the fact that it is a bad idea. If you watch the news or follow the majority of public opinion here you will see that just about everyone else feels the same way. Except you and Bush of course.

quote: Please look past all the racial references.

Response from NygDan: 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.

Response: At this point I have no idea what to say to you. You are entitled to your own opinion here, that is fine. But, race is not the issue that I have here....if you cannot understand that, well that is too bad for you because I am entitled to my opinions as well.


[edit on 2/24/2006 by Kaotik68]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68
quote: kaotik68


Please learn to use the quotes. Thank you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
NygDan,

Here are some of the key facts about the UAE;

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

- A senior Pakistani al-Qaida operative who used to run one of the terror group's training camps in Afghanistan was arrested in the United Arab Emirates (in Dubai) and handed over to Pakistani officials in 2004.

-There have been Hamas couriers as late as last year that were sent to the West Bank or Gaza that came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations.

-here was supposed to be a strike on Bin Laden in February 1999. It was averted because apparently there were members of the UAE royal family with Bin Laden at that point, showing some pretty strong ties with Bin Laden and at least the royal family of the UAE.

-Here is a link to an article about the UAE being the "Criminal Crossroads" in that region of the world

www.usnews.com...

-Al Qaeda Claimed Infiltration of Key UAE Agencies in 2002, and were reported to have warned UAE officials that "You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned." Al Qaeda also pokes at the perceived weaknesses in their intelligence and security operations and at American counterterrorism programs.

-Viktor Bout, the world's largest illegal weapons dealer, made $50 million selling weapons to the Taliban, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. He continues to feed murder and mayhem across Africa by selling weapons to rogue regimes and nonstate actors. And he continues to maintain several dozen aircraft in UAE--one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Bout and 30 of his companies are designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and the United Nations Sanctions, meaning every country is bound to freeze the assets of those companies and individuals. Yet the UAE has made no move to go after Bout's aircraft, even though one of his designated companies, IRBIS, continues to fly openly, and has not even bothered to change its name. His aircraft sit on the runways of Sharjah, and his pilots continue to fly daily from there, including recent flights for the U.S. military and its contractors.

The United States, for the past EIGHT YEARS has been asking the UAE to crack down on Bout's illicit activities there, with no results.

-The United Arab Emirates, Not Very Safe for US Citizens, But Supposedly Safe to Run Our Ports?
When you visit the US Department of State web site, you discover some interesting information about the UAE. If you were considering traveling to our “ally in the war on terror”, the US State Department has some advice for you.

travel.state.gov...

SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution. In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities. Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times. U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy. Taking photographs of potentially-sensitive military or civilian sites, and/or engaging in mapping activities, especially mapping which includes the use of GPS equipment, without coordination with UAE authorities, may result in arrest, detention and/or prosecution by local authorities.

Yeah that really sounds like the government really trusts the UAE!


Ok, so don't tell me that it is "ok" for this deal to go through. There are several valid points here for you to enlighten yourself with.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Kaotik68
quote: kaotik68


Please learn to use the quotes. Thank you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


No problem. Sorry about that.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz



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'.



I didn't see anyone complaining that they are an arabic country.

So far, that is the only complaint.


People are complaining about their known ties to terrorism ... something I do not agree with anyways (need more proof).

The only tie to terrorism is that its an arabic country. Two 911 hijackers wre from it. So what. A lot more were from saudi arabia, and we don't make special laws to regulate them.


Again, instead of directly responding to the question, you take another faux jab at arabs. What gives?

The only reason that peopel are up in arms over this and the country is being so hysterical is because the people invovled are arabs. It has nothing to do with the UAE in particular. Its all about "Arabs get control of US ports, bombs expected".


If you fail to see this you are very ignorant of the power of foreign governments.

This company is owned by the government in so far as its owned by the big emir of the UAE. And, again, that has not been the major issue here, if it was a company owned by Prince Charles, do you honestly think that there'd be such an uproar? Or if it were owned by the Prince of Monaco???






You are right that we have no say in it. But again, enough with the arab references ... this has nothing to do with the particular country.

If it was the netherlands, people wouldn't blink. Remember the 'scare' over japanese companies buying up so many american companies? The dutch owned a hell of a lot more than them, but people weren't scared.


Look at the UAE's wealth. Do they really need American ports?

So you suggest that the UAE is infact a terrorist organization using this purchase to directly coordinate a terrrorist attack?


kaotika
If you are that disheartened maybe you could move to the UAE, I am sure you would be much happier there.

So now my patriotism and loyalties are questioned merely becuase I don't buy into the racist bullcrap that arabs can't own a percentage of 'our' ports? Bah.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
This is racism, plain and simple. Why do we do business with ANY arabs then? Does this mean I should not trust Mahmuud at the local Circle K? I mean, if he is Afghani. maybe the has a bomb strapped to his leg. Now if he wears a T-shirt showing the towers coming down, then be curious.

We are asked to look upon everyone as an equal so why is this not applied to international business? Are you unaware of how much of the US is owned by companies not in the US?

This is about who will get the bigger tax break, not how to get WMD's into the country. It would be like going out and buying a new truck, in your own name, and loading it with explosives and blowing something up. Too obvious.

I have seen where they are backing down from the deal. Where are the American companies to step up to the plate.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   


cagle.msnbc.com...

Seriously though, this is kind of ridiculous. It's been stated that the company is not going to be in charge of security, and it's also been stated, over and over again, which I can't understand why, that we only check about 5% of the shipments coming in anyway. I don't think it makes us any more or less secure, it only makes us seem paranoid and racist...



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
27jd

That is the best post so far in the thread, I could not stop laughing.


The reason US population is so hysterical about Arabs is because so far we have been fed day and night by our administration that most Arab countries harbor terrorist.

For one side we have the administration telling us that we are fighting in Iraq because terror, 9/11 was cause by terrorist from Arab nations.

Countries in Europe are having problems with their muslin and Arab populations.

Bush tell us that US doesn't do business with countries that may harbor terrorism.

And now we have to sit like good littler children and be nice or be call racist?

So what anybody expect, the indoctrination of the American public has gone this time to far in order to secure our energy future in Iraq and the middle east and to justify our troops in that area.


I don't care who is the one doing business and own our land but we are the tax payer and rightful residents and citizens of this country so our voices have to be heard.

This is an issue of security not racism and neither politics

But I guess is taken by politicians and interest groups anyway it may go with their agendas.

Shame on all of them, we Americans should not even be fighting about his at all, we should be questioning the intentions of doing business deals behind close doors and away from the congress when it has to do with our nations security.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
27jd

That is the best post so far in the thread, I could not stop laughing.


The reason US population is so hysterical about Arabs is because so far we have been fed day and night by our administration that most Arab countries harbor terrorist.

For one side we have the administration telling us that we are fighting in Iraq because terror, 9/11 was cause by terrorist from Arab nations.

Countries in Europe are having problems with their muslin and Arab populations.

Bush tell us that US doesn't do business with countries that may harbor terrorism.

And now we have to sit like good littler children and be nice or be call racist?

So what anybody expect, the indoctrination of the American public has gone this time to far in order to secure our energy future in Iraq and the middle east and to justify our troops in that area.


I don't care who is the one doing business and own our land but we are the tax payer and rightful residents and citizens of this country so our voices have to be heard.

This is an issue of security not racism and neither politics

But I guess is taken by politicians and interest groups anyway it may go with their agendas.

Shame on all of them, we Americans should not even be fighting about his at all, we should be questioning the intentions of doing business deals behind close doors and away from the congress when it has to do with our nations security.




That is true, Bush has said many times that we will not do business with countries that harbor terrorists, or have anything to do with them. You can bet that there are some back door deals going on with this issue.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   


This is racism, plain and simple.


Nonsense, but it must feel pretty for corporate scumbags to finally be able to point that finger.




Why do we do business with ANY arabs then? Does this mean I should not trust Mahmuud at the local Circle K? I mean, if he is Afghani. maybe the has a bomb strapped to his leg.


Nonsense. There's a BIG difference between 'doing business with' and 'turning over infrastructure and management duties critical to national infrastructure', and I thought that would have been obvious. Is Mahmuud down at Circle K the UAE? Is the Circle K, for that matter, a state-owned business?

Would you support a bid by the UAE to take over purchasing duties for the Navy Intelligence offices? Would you support a bid by the UAE to take over screening duties at airports? Would you support the UAE if it wanted to manage our military? Would you support the UAE if it wasn't in bed with your side in the political farce?

American companies should control infrastructure critical to national security, if for no other reason, the tax implications. What about oversight? :shk: Seems like a bad, bad idea.



We are asked to look upon everyone as an equal so why is this not applied to international business? Are you unaware of how much of the US is owned by companies not in the US?


International businesses are not people. As far as I'm concerned, Dubai isn't just an 'international business', and while we're on the subject, ETHICS. BUSINESS ETHICS, or lack thereof, as the case may be.

Not like we have any in this country, but at least a framework exists for pursuing grievances.

:shk:



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
but at least a framework exists for pursuing grievances.

:shk:


Exactly! For me the issue is one of accountability. Granting a foreign government this kind of access to our infrastructure produces none.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
but at least a framework exists for pursuing grievances.

:shk:


Exactly! For me the issue is one of accountability. Granting a foreign government this kind of access to our infrastructure produces none.

Hrrmmm, so you didn't know that PNO was a British company?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
but at least a framework exists for pursuing grievances.

:shk:


Exactly! For me the issue is one of accountability. Granting a foreign government this kind of access to our infrastructure produces none.


I followed this link in your signature, very interesting.

You know what, let them say what they want.....obviously they feel threatened. I don't care what they say, if they want to label me a threat to national security because of what I say, or my opinion......gee what does that sond like to you ??????



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
Hrrmmm, so you didn't know that PNO was a British company?


Note the emphasis on the word COMPANY. The UAE entity is owned by the STATE.

BIG difference.

Oh, and I feel no less comforted by the fact that our port infrastructure is run by any foreign nationals.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Lanton
Hrrmmm, so you didn't know that PNO was a British company?


Note the emphasis on the word COMPANY. The UAE entity is owned by the STATE.

BIG difference.

Oh, and I feel no less comforted by the fact that our port infrastructure is run by any foreign nationals.

So even though the UAE's been one of the US's most important allies, in the Middle East, in the on-going war on terror, and the fact that the UAE firm won't be responsible for the port's security itself, you're still against the deal because they're Arabs?

Or is it because you're one of those trade protectionist nutters - the ones with their heads in the sand?

Or is it a bit of both?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
you're still against the deal because they're Arabs?


You didn't score too well in reading comprehension did you?



Originally posted by loam
I feel no less comforted by the fact that our port infrastructure is run by any foreign nationals.


Maybe it's a vision thing. Shall I adjust the font size????


Originally posted by Lanton
Or is it because you're one of those trade protectionist nutters - the ones with their heads in the sand?





In speeches, administration enthusiasm for free trade abounds. "Fearful people build walls around America," said the president this spring, but "confident people make sure there are no walls." In practice, however, Mr. Bush seems to reach for the trowel and mortar every other week to slap on another brick of protectionism.

Source.



George W. Bush, Protectionist

Analysis: Bush's protectionist tendency

Bush as Fake Free-Trader


You were saying?


I am not confused by bad deals masquerading behind the mantra of free trade. The only "nutters" are the ones who don't see the difference.







 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join