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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Everytime I hear of this subject I think of the movie "Sum of all Fears."




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
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]


And what is wrong with US based firms running "everything" as you call it?
What is wrong with wanting Americans to run an American port?? The answer to that is NOTHING. Why are you so desperate and quick to give away control of these things?

Where do I stop??
Hopefully we do not stop thinking about concerns like this. I find nothing wrong with wanting an American company to run any critical infrastructure, as a matter of fact I call that pride in my country.

And lastly, no one said anything about giving up foreign investments, blah blah blah........you are grasping for straws and are off the subject.

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68

Originally posted by Lanton
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]


And what is wrong with US based firms running "everything" as you call it?
What is wrong with wanting Americans to run an American port?? The answer to that is NOTHING. Why are you so desperate and quick to give away control of these things?

Where do I stop??
Hopefully we do not stop thinking about concerns like this. I find nothing wrong with wanting an American company to run any critical infrastructure, as a matter of fact I call that pride in my country.

And lastly, no one said anything about giving up foreign investments, blah blah blah........you are grasping for straws and are off the subject.

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]

Please answer the question; where do we stop; with ports, airports, financial institutions, power utilities?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
What do you mean where do we stop??


Ok maybe this will answer it for you.....

If Britain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc was to say it was acquiring a company that controlled a portion of the national power grid.......same thing, I would be bitching the whole way.

What if they wanted to control some of the biggest financial institutions, water treatment plants, waste disposal.....ANYTHING, it would not matter. I would still feel the same way.

We address these issues as they come up....if the power plants become an issue, then we address it just as we are now.

I guess the answer is that you do not stop......we cannot afford to just stop and sit back and see what happens anymore, do you just not get that or what????



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68
What do you mean where do we stop??


Ok maybe this will answer it for you.....

If Britain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc was to say it was acquiring a company that controlled a portion of the national power grid.......same thing, I would be bitching the whole way.

What if they wanted to control some of the biggest financial institutions, water treatment plants, waste disposal.....ANYTHING, it would not matter. I would still feel the same way.

We address these issues as they come up....if the power plants become an issue, then we address it just as we are now.

I guess the answer is that you do not stop......we cannot afford to just stop and sit back and see what happens anymore, do you just not get that or what????

So where do you think the US (or any country for that matter) gets it's share of foreign investment from?

You have to draw a line in the sand, so the invester knows what he's limited too, otherwise the invester won't feel comfortable enough to invest in anything.

The White House can't just tell the UAE 'you can't have the ports deal...try something else', then when the UAE tries something else, the White House again says 'you can't have this deal either...try something else' - cos then they'll take their investment elsewhere; to Europe or Asia.

What kind of message do you think a rejection of this ports deal would send to Europe or Asia?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Lanton]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by Kaotik68
What do you mean where do we stop??


Ok maybe this will answer it for you.....

If Britain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc was to say it was acquiring a company that controlled a portion of the national power grid.......same thing, I would be bitching the whole way.

What if they wanted to control some of the biggest financial institutions, water treatment plants, waste disposal.....ANYTHING, it would not matter. I would still feel the same way.

We address these issues as they come up....if the power plants become an issue, then we address it just as we are now.

I guess the answer is that you do not stop......we cannot afford to just stop and sit back and see what happens anymore, do you just not get that or what????

So where do you think the US (or any country for that matter) gets it's share of foreign investment from?


Other foreign countries (thats why they call it foreign investment sporto).

Britain, Germany, Japan, Canada, France, etc.


[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by Kaotik68
What do you mean where do we stop??


Ok maybe this will answer it for you.....

If Britain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc was to say it was acquiring a company that controlled a portion of the national power grid.......same thing, I would be bitching the whole way.

What if they wanted to control some of the biggest financial institutions, water treatment plants, waste disposal.....ANYTHING, it would not matter. I would still feel the same way.

We address these issues as they come up....if the power plants become an issue, then we address it just as we are now.

I guess the answer is that you do not stop......we cannot afford to just stop and sit back and see what happens anymore, do you just not get that or what????

So where do you think the US (or any country for that matter) gets it's share of foreign investment from?

You have to draw a line in the sand, so the invester knows what he's limited too, otherwise the invester won't feel comfortable enough to invest in anything.

The White House can't just tell the UAE 'you can't have the ports deal...try something else', then when the UAE tries something else, the White House again says 'you can't have this deal either...try something else' - cos then they'll take their investment elsewhere; to Europe or Asia.

What kind of message do you think a rejection of this ports deal would send to Europe or Asia?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Lanton]


Sure we can tell them too bad..............what if we went over there and wanted to take over running all the religious places in their country? What do you think they would say? They would tell us to get fuc*** is what they would say. I hope it sends the message that we are being cautious, and would like to keep American ports under American control. That is part of the problem with our government, they have become so dependent on what kind of message they are sending to the rest of the world that they are forgetting why they are here. What kind of a message would it send.....you gotta be kidding me. Are you from the UAE, or the government?? Cause you damn sure are not a true American that is concerned about this country or the safety of its inhabitants.

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by Kaotik68
What do you mean where do we stop??


Ok maybe this will answer it for you.....

If Britain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc was to say it was acquiring a company that controlled a portion of the national power grid.......same thing, I would be bitching the whole way.

What if they wanted to control some of the biggest financial institutions, water treatment plants, waste disposal.....ANYTHING, it would not matter. I would still feel the same way.

We address these issues as they come up....if the power plants become an issue, then we address it just as we are now.

I guess the answer is that you do not stop......we cannot afford to just stop and sit back and see what happens anymore, do you just not get that or what????

So where do you think the US (or any country for that matter) gets it's share of foreign investment from?

You have to draw a line in the sand, so the invester knows what he's limited too, otherwise the invester won't feel comfortable enough to invest in anything.

The White House can't just tell the UAE 'you can't have the ports deal...try something else', then when the UAE tries something else, the White House again says 'you can't have this deal either...try something else' - cos then they'll take their investment elsewhere; to Europe or Asia.

What kind of message do you think a rejection of this ports deal would send to Europe or Asia?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Lanton]


Sure we can tell them too bad..............what if we went over there and wanted to take over running all the religious places in their country? What do you think they would say? They would tell us to get fuc*** is what they would say. I hope it sends the message that we are being cautious, and would like to keep American ports under American control. That is part of the problem with our government, they have become so dependent on what kind of message they are sending to the rest of the world that they are forgetting why they are here. What kind of a message would it send.....you gotta be kidding me. Are you from the UAE, or the government?? Cause you damn sure are not a true American that is concerned about this country or the safety of its inhabitants.

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Kaotik68]

So where's the US gonna get it's foreign investment from, if we're not gonna allow any non US-based firms to invest in the country's critical infrastructure?

The lifeblood of the US economy (historically the world's strongest economy) comes from direct and indirect foreign investment.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
You are correct in saying that we do depend on foreign investment for critical infrastructure, but when you said that there had to be a line drawn I believe that ownership, or "running" our ports should be one place that the line is drawn.

An answer to your question is that there is no single "easy" answer. After 9/11 things changed drastically in this country and it is something we are all trying to learn how to deal with. I agree (sadly) that we are somewhat dependent on foreign investment, but I still disagree with the port deal.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
So it was OK for a British owned company (foriegn) to operate out of the port, but not for the UAE.

For some reason there is the belief that this will 'lead' to terrorism. Terrorism is already here. If nothing, this will be a way for more review and time to be expended making sure that the our ports are better protected.

They are not sending boatloads of Arabs over here from the UAE, trust me. The UAE is not sending it's own security forces. Local union dockworkers will still be employed, there jsut may be a middle management shake up, and if it was British owned, then they go back to Britan.

DHS initially balked at the deal until a background investigation was done. If this deal is cancelled, it is pure racism. There is nothing else you can call it.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So it was OK for a British owned company (foriegn) to operate out of the port, but not for the UAE.

For some reason there is the belief that this will 'lead' to terrorism. Terrorism is already here. If nothing, this will be a way for more review and time to be expended making sure that the our ports are better protected.

They are not sending boatloads of Arabs over here from the UAE, trust me. The UAE is not sending it's own security forces. Local union dockworkers will still be employed, there jsut may be a middle management shake up, and if it was British owned, then they go back to Britan.

DHS initially balked at the deal until a background investigation was done. If this deal is cancelled, it is pure racism. There is nothing else you can call it.





First of all no one said that they were sending over boat loads of Arabs genius. Second of all, I am familiar with the particulars of the deal (I did start the thread, so I have kind of been following it in the news). I can tell you this, I am sure it is much easier for a terrorist organization to infiltrate through the UAE than it would be for them to infiltrate through Britain right now. This deal will open the door for them to just walk right in, and will make it easier for them to accomplish their mission.

A time for more review........you have a hell of a sense of timing. Thats like a bomb technician leaving his trainee of only one day to diffuse a sophistocated bomb....I can see it now. "Good luck trainee, this will be a good review for you."



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Esdad, what if you find out the government has the same deal for our
Air-ports?

Would you object to that? Or would this also be ok??

Just wondering.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Esdad, what if you find out the government has the same deal for our
Air-ports?

Would you object to that? Or would this also be ok??

Just wondering.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by dgtempe]


Oh I am sure that Esdad and Lanton would not have any problems with that. They would both be too concerned as to what kind of message it would send if we said no.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68

Originally posted by dgtempe
Esdad, what if you find out the government has the same deal for our
Air-ports?

Would you object to that? Or would this also be ok??

Just wondering.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by dgtempe]


Oh I am sure that Esdad and Lanton would not have any problems with that. They would both be too concerned as to what kind of message it would send if we said no.

If you're not ok with a foreign firm investing in any of the country's critical infrastructure (ports, airports, banking institutions, power utilities...basically any of the money-making stuff), then why not just wall ourselves off, literally, from the rest of the world? So what if the economy goes down the drain (which it surely would)...at least only US-based firms would be in control of the country's critical infrastructure, right?

That's what makes the US a superpower, because of the economic might it's able to wield. The US doesn't wall itself off from Europe or Asia - which enables the economy to feed off levels of direct and indirect investment that other countries can only dream of.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Maybe if we went out and collected all the money that is owed to this country we would not be in the spot that we are right now.......so dependent on foreign governments and investments. You can surely blame the government for that one.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaotik68
Maybe if we went out and collected all the money that is owed to this country we would not be in the spot that we are right now.......so dependent on foreign governments and investments. You can surely blame the government for that one.

Minus the stuff that the US owes to the UN and the billions that go to Israel every year, right?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by Kaotik68
Maybe if we went out and collected all the money that is owed to this country we would not be in the spot that we are right now.......so dependent on foreign governments and investments. You can surely blame the government for that one.

Minus the stuff that the US owes to the UN and the billions that go to Israel every year, right?


There should not even be a UN....but that is another post all together.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What I am stating is the fact that alot of these statements are have no merit and make Americans look like paranoid racists.

I read about how it is going to hurt our economy in one post (there is no loss of jobs, that is where the boatload of Arabs reference came from. It is called a rebuttal genius Reread the posts) This is not true. There is no loss of jobs.

Port security is not changing and is no different no matter what country you operate in. You have to abide by their rules. There would be corruption no matter who owned the company. How do you people think drugs get into the country?

Is this an arguement for better port security, or the fact that they are Arabs? It seems that alot of you are in agreeance that port security sucks, so instead of wasting money and time on drawing out a 'sale' that will occur anyway, why not invest that time and money into investigating better port protocol?

The FAA handles air security in the US and this will not change. It Seems that England is going through something very similar right now.

news.airwise.com...

I am not defending anyone, I am looking at this from a business perspective, not a conspiracy perspective. Yes, it reads like the intro to a Clancy novel, but that is not the point. This is the 21st century, and the UAE is a player in the big leagues. This is how the world operates. A few years from now another deal will be made, everyone makes money and we move on.

If you want to stop something blatant, go into the convienence stores where they collect the money for the poor kids, and tell them to stop supporting terror. Do a little reasearch as to where that spare change goes, and you might find some Palestinian Jihad ties, trust me.

If Lockheed Martin was to be taken over by a UAE corporation, then yes, it is common sense to block that sale, and there are oversight committees in place to take care of these types of things. This could be loss of sensitive or classified material. This is a name change, and nothing else.











[edit on 27-2-2006 by esdad71]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
So Esdad71, you are saying that this is just a name change and nothing else? Let me ask you something, and be honest...

If you were a terrorist trying to get into the US, would'nt it sound pretty juicy that the UAE would be taking over port operations. If it was me I would be thinking in terms of, I can now find out the inner workings of the port, how things are run, the schedules of arriving and departing vessels of all nations. Not to mention they will have to work closely with the coast guard, DEA, etc.....whos to say they could not learn something from that, say that they have a certain method of searching cargo and ships, or they may have certain things that set off red flags. These are all things that could be found out by an industrious terrorist organization. So no, it is not just a name change.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
If i was a terrorist, I would get into Canada via South America. Then I would make it to British Columbia, and I would observe how they take kayaks and small boats across the water to smuggle BC bud (marijuana). I would follow one and either pay him to take me or kill him and use his transportation, or I would hook up with a drug cartel in Mexico with connections I made in Chechnya, and take a drug truck or tunnel across the border. That is how they are getting in. If the ACLU ever backed off, maybe a little more big brother on the borders would improve our chances.

You see, I feel safe enough with my countries security that this deal is not a big security concern. Do you really think that gov't agencies give the heads up when there is a search, or a raid or if they are bieng monitored? That for some reason if you owned this company you would be privy to secret information? Read the internet and you can learn all you want about port security, and how to attmept to circumvent it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join