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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
In your second to last post, you said, and i quote; Oh, and I feel no less comforted by the fact that our port infrastructure is run by any foreign nationals.

How can you not be for trade-protectionism, at least in this case, if you're not just against this deal going ahead because we're dealing with an Arab firm here. The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism, yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm. That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism, yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm. That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.


Just because someone has been a good ally to us does not mean anything when it comes to this deal. Having inside knowledge of port operations in the U.S. is something that does not need to happen here. It just does not make sense, and will only lead to something bad happening. How can our government preach security all the time, and constantly say we need improvements in security, and then go through with a deal like this? Quit making it into a racist issue and look at the facts.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Good news, USA is being screwed over.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Good news, USA is being screwed over.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that all you are going to contribute to this thread? Did you read the rules about one line responses?


Educate yourself...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2/26/2006 by Kaotik68]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68

The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism, yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm. That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.


Just because someone has been a good ally to us does not mean anything when it comes to this deal. Having inside knowledge of port operations in the U.S. is something that does not need to happen here. It just does not make sense, and will only lead to something bad happening. How can our government preach security all the time, and constantly say we need improvements in security, and then go through with a deal like this? Quit making it into a racist issue and look at the facts.


So the White House should've said 'you're a wonderful ally...one that has been extremely helpful to us in the on-going war on terror...but you're Arabs so we can't let this deal go ahead'? That's why the average Joe and Jane on the streets, in the US, is against the deal, because they hear 'Arab' and they think 'OMgodZ0r...Arab, means....TERRORISTS!'

I don't get it, PNO's a British-based company, so by your thinking, question marks should've been placed on their operations, because of the 7/7 bombings, the thousands of disaffected and militant Muslim youths in the UK, the UK's previous lax-attitude to the preaching of fundamentalist views and anti-Western views in some of the UK's most prominent mosques, right?

Look, the Democrats are against this deal going ahead not because of the security implications of it (the UAE firm won't be responsible for the port's security), but because the Democrats now seem to be just opposing anything the the White House comes out with just for the sake of it.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   


Besides which, the UAE is an ALLY of the US in the War on Terrror, and an arab nation at that. There is no evidence that this company is at all connected to terrorism, and the sale is of a foreign company to another foreign company. There's not a single reason to stop the sale, other than that they're arabs, and apparently arabs are supposed to be evil or something.


Your lost. Even thought the UAE may not e a terrorist Govt. lets not say that don't harbor them or have them in their midst. Getting UAE citizens with terror connections is the problem, not that the Prince of the UAE will be shpping over a nuke.

This is bad news for Americans. American companies should run our ports. This is all about money and that opens doors for the terrorists.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   


So the White House should've said 'you're a wonderful ally...one that has been extremely helpful to us in the on-going war on terror...but you're Arabs so we can't let this deal go ahead'? That's why the average Joe and Jane on the streets, in the US, is against the deal, because they hear 'Arab' and they think 'OMgodZ0r...Arab, means....TERRORISTS!'


There you go again....I never said BUT YOU'RE ARABS........that does not have a damn thing to do with it. God you are thick headed! You just do not get it. The UAE does not have anything remotely close to the security that we have in place now (granted it is nowhere near enough). So that makes it a breeding ground for terrorists of all descents, they could be green, or red and it would not matter! And as for the average Joe and Jane on the streets.....they are alot smarter than you my friend, because when it comes to this port deal you are the minority.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
well lets put it this way. Osama was an ally during the soviet invasion...backfire. saddam was an ally during war with iran....backfire. i dont know i just think allies arent the most reliable people. i dont agree with any country actually owning any ports or anything to that extent where something could internationally enter the country. i would trust britian before a middle eastern nation because frankly, britians part of the world isnt as unstable as a middle eastern nation is. they arent going to come out attacking us or turning on us, or at least its alot less likely then a middle eastern nation would turn on us.

bush little veto threat just makes me look at him with more disgust. they should have used a veto for the whole richest 1% tax cut when it came up, but i forgot that probably includes all of them, so what do they care. the US government isnt a government anymore, its a business. they are there to make money, like any business would. hooray for capitalism and free enterprise!



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68



So the White House should've said 'you're a wonderful ally...one that has been extremely helpful to us in the on-going war on terror...but you're Arabs so we can't let this deal go ahead'? That's why the average Joe and Jane on the streets, in the US, is against the deal, because they hear 'Arab' and they think 'OMgodZ0r...Arab, means....TERRORISTS!'


There you go again....I never said BUT YOU'RE ARABS........that does not have a damn thing to do with it. God you are thick headed! You just do not get it. The UAE does not have anything remotely close to the security that we have in place now (granted it is nowhere near enough). So that makes it a breeding ground for terrorists of all descents, they could be green, or red and it would not matter! And as for the average Joe and Jane on the streets.....they are alot smarter than you my friend, because when it comes to this port deal you are the minority.

Why sugar-coat it? You're against this deal going ahead because it's an Arab firm, right?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I am against this deal because it is a foreign government, and it is bad business when it comes to our security.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
ive been on this board constantly defending racism against arabs and how they are constantly hated for no reason, yet i guess because i am not for this deal either i am equally racist against arabs?

sounds like bush and his patriotism. youre not down for war?! your unpatriotic then!



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
well lets put it this way. Osama was an ally during the soviet invasion...backfire. saddam was an ally during war with iran....backfire. i dont know i just think allies arent the most reliable people. i dont agree with any country actually owning any ports or anything to that extent where something could internationally enter the country. i would trust britian before a middle eastern nation because frankly, britians part of the world isnt as unstable as a middle eastern nation is. they arent going to come out attacking us or turning on us, or at least its alot less likely then a middle eastern nation would turn on us.


How many times in history have alliances backfired? Lets see, there was US and Russia in WW1 & 2, the pre-WW2 non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany, The Irish and English during the invasion of Scotland. Need more? Alliances at times, are mostly about common interests and goals, not so much good relations. This has happened many times throughout history and is nothing new.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
ludachris: which is EXACTLY why we should give our ports to such nations. backfires are common in history, except now if we get a backfire it will be on our own land rather then some distant country. im not looking foward to any more 9/11 attacks on our land, especially if it can be avoided. a backfire would spell disaster. we are looking out for number 1 when it comes to our security.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
How can you not be for trade-protectionism, at least in this case, if you're not just against this deal going ahead because we're dealing with an Arab firm here.


Once again, you do not read very well... So I'll try to explain it in a way that will enable the three neurons you have apparently decided to devote to my posts so they can understand.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS should not be running our critical infrastructure! Get it? I don't care if its done by the Brits, the Canadians, or the Intergalactic Federation...


Under your world view, it would then be appropriate to outsource our boarder crossings...our airports....our military...

What's the difference? Unless you are a complete idiot, some restraints on trade are appropriate. Otherwise, why have any business law at all? Perhaps Lockhead Martin should sell their weapons technology to anyone they feel like... Would you support that under the name of free trade?


:shk:


Originally posted by Lanton
The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism,


:shk: Most important?
You really haven't thought this through very much have you? You have an odd notion of important... What about Turkey? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?

Does your jaw hurt from the force-fed rhetoric the self-interested champions of this port deal have apparently provided you?

I have said this before in other posts, if the strength of the UAE's friendship with the United States rests upon this single deal, then that ALONE is enough to oppose it.

Real friendship comes with greater commitment than that.


Originally posted by Lanton
yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm.

That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.


...And you must be an idiot- mostly because I would never call someone I belived to be a racist "Sir".


Anyone who reads my posts on the subject of prejudice knows very well where I stand.



[edit on 26-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
So you're for trade protectionism, right? You'd only be completely happy if US-based firms ran everything, right?

You're talking about the need for US firms to run the country's critical infrastructure; but where do you stop? Do we stop at ports, or airports, or banks, or power utilities?

How about the US just completely shut itself off from the rest of the world, give up on the foreign investment, into the US, that comes with the US's business connections to Europe, the Middle East and Asia? Would that satisfy you?

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Lanton]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
So you're for trade protectionism, right?






NEXT!



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Lanton
So you're for trade protectionism, right?






NEXT!

Gonna tackle the other points i made in that post?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
Gonna tackle the other points i made in that post?


You mean the ones you added AFTER the first question you posted? Sure, why not...

I'll start my answer by reposting the question I asked above that you conveniently avoided:



Under your world view, it would then be appropriate to outsource our boarder crossings...our airports....our military...

What's the difference? Unless you are a complete idiot, some restraints on trade are appropriate. Otherwise, why have any business law at all? Perhaps Lockhead Martin should sell their weapons technology to anyone they feel like... Would you support that under the name of free trade?





Originally posted by Lanton
How about the US just completely shut itself off from the rest of the world, give up on the foreign investment, into the US, that comes with the US's business connections to Europe, the Middle East and Asia? Would that satisfy you?


Did I say that? Of course not.... But your dishonest, or feeble, brain is incapable of understanding anything less than extremes, on either end of the scale, now, isn't it?



[edit on 27-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Lanton
Gonna tackle the other points i made in that post?


You mean the ones you added AFTER the first question you posted? Sure, why not...

I'll start my answer by reposting the question I asked above that you conveniently avoided:



Under your world view, it would then be appropriate to outsource our boarder crossings...our airports....our military...

What's the difference? Unless you are a complete idiot, some restraints on trade are appropriate. Otherwise, why have any business law at all? Perhaps Lockhead Martin should sell their weapons technology to anyone they feel like... Would you support that under the name of free trade?





Originally posted by Lanton
How about the US just completely shut itself off from the rest of the world, give up on the foreign investment, into the US, that comes with the US's business connections to Europe, the Middle East and Asia? Would that satisfy you?


Did I say that? Of course not.... But your dishonest, or feeble, brain is incapable of understanding anything less than extremes, on either end of the scale, now, isn't it?



[edit on 26-2-2006 by loam]

Again, where do you stop?; with ports, or financial institutions, power utilities, airports?!



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
First I must Admit, I have read very little about this deal but...
I think this is way overlown. As someone mention earlier it is a sale from one foreign comapny (British I think) to the UAE. So what welcome to capitalism.


On another note why would you think that American Gov. doesnt want more terroism on U.S. soil? It feeds our economy. PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE.
I mean the US is in large part a military driven economy. the cold war ended and we needed a new bad guy to pay for our weapon production. Terroism fits that perfectly...
A NEVER ENDING WAR!!!!!!

Maybe I've taken this too far but I think before we worry about the UAE controlling some ports we should decide who the enemy is first. Many of the "supposed" highjakers where from Saudi Arabia but we dont get news coverage of the U.S. relatioship with them.







 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join