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.

 

NEWS: Bush to Veto Laws Blocking Arab Port Deal

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
A picture is worth a thousand word they say, More a long the lines of billions of dollars.





posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Sauron

Remember we should not discriminate against them, when it comes to money, profits and business deals they are our friends.

And money knows not country.


But it knows who holds the power.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Does everything have to be so black and white?


To alot of people on this planet it IS divided into two distinct opposing forces. Good vs Evil. Left vs Right. Cat vs Dog. Hawk vs Dove.

The middle ground to them is non-existant because it would mean actually making concessions, compromises and "putting yourself in the other persons shoes," all of which is a completely alien concept to them. I'm talking about ALL partisans, both Lefty and Righty drones think like this. You're never lonely in a crowd.

It's a very simple mindset which prevents people from actually thinking about the issues and it works to detract from a healthy debate.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
A picture is worth a thousand word they say, More a long the lines of billions of dollars.



The nation in question here is the United Arab Emirates.

The individual in this picture is Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
How about these photos then?


Wacko Jacko does business in Dubai. Shopping for child sex slaves?


Here's a good photo in regards to the administration's great deals with arabs.
This is probably right before the US sells nerve gas to Saddam.


Then we have Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld greets Lt. Gen. Muhammed bin Zayed al Nayhan, chief of staff of the armed forces of the United Arab Emirates, in the Pentagon on May 21, 2003. Rummy discussing the ports deal and political asylum from the Hague?

Isn't that special!

Can you say F-R-E-A-K-S and T-R-E-A-S-O-N?!



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Just heard Alex Jones on Coast to Coast Am who said it is now confirmed that it is 8 ports in the deal, not 6. One of the additional two is at Corpus Christi, TX... Not sure what the other one was, but more to come on his website he said soon. www.infowars.com

IMO this stinks for many reasons, and I'm sure they've all been discussed here. But according to Alex, this is nothing compared to other infrastructure handovers that have taken place to the Chinese, who just threatened 2 months ago to nuke 200 US cities if the US meddled with any Chinese holdings in the US. Other mega deals currently working involve selling out US roadway systems to the Spanish and others, with the King of Spain who Alex says is involved.

Don't look at me, it's just what I heard on Coast to Coast just now, just relaying the info.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Come on folks we all know the reason Bush wants the UAE deal to go through.

The US owes them one the UAE did us a great service they took Michael Jackson AKA Jacko off our hands. He now resides in the UAE making the country safer for countless US children

[edit on 24-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone over the age of 12 that somewhere along the way diplomats and political leaders find themselves shaking hands with those whom they would just as soon eliminate on the spot. The perennial display of the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam has no meaning beyond the fact that in the distant past America and Iraq found themselves in the position of having a common political cause. Those older than 30 will probably have no trouble remembering that that cause was Iran. A lot of water has passed over the dam since then and if Saddam hadn't been such a dunce, he might well still have the uneasy support of the United States.

What does this picture tell us, in itself, about relations between the US and the USSR in 1962?



What does this picture tell us about the forty-year history of the Cold War?



What does this picture tell us about the state of national security during the Clinton administration?



Well, on second thought, don't answer that.


"Fundamentally, the policy [of arming Saddam] was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

www.washingtonpost.com



The sages among us often remind us that history is not written in photo ops, though sometimes administrations and demagogues wish it was.



[edit on 2006/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Yall are just a bunch of damn Bush hating liberals



sorry...I had to act like one of the Bushises for a sec






posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The sages among us often remind us that history is not written in photo ops, though sometimes administrations and demagogues wish it was.


Sages would indicate dirty deals abound from pond scum,
trust none, get the ropes and no excuses for any of it.


Get rid of that rogue dissident! This is a butt kisser conference!


Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person".

www.gwu.edu...


Halabja poison gas attack
Yeah we know how that handshake ended and so do the Kurds.


Nonconformists? I got their port deal right here!

11 REPS WRITE ADMIN, SAY PORT DEAL BROKE LAW

Bush Library Received UAE Sheik's Million Dollar Contribution

Paul Krugman: Osama, Saddam and the Ports


Give me da word boss and I'll rub dem out!


[edit on 24-2-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
He can threaten to veto all he wants, but Congress will override his veto. The American Public is completely against this. Its also hard for me to believe that no American company would be willing to purchase the contracts to run these ports.


I'd just love to see the response if Halliburton steps forward to take the contract.

I really haven't lost any sleep over this story. We have allies in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia and the UAE happen to be two of them, maybe the only two, well perhaps Jordan. This is the situation as I see it. Currently, a UK firms holds the contract, but that firm is being sold by its parent company to the UAE firm, who wishes to have the contract transferred.

The President, whether or not he has known the details of the transaction since day one, believes that all the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed and that there is no reason not to do business with an ally.

When he asks what the difference is between a "Great British" company owning the enterprise and a UAE company owning the enterprise, the two nations actually involved, the Brits on the board are screaming bloody murder and the "let's not hurt the Muslims' feelings by profiling and bring the boys home" crowd is recoiling in horror at the supposed national security threat.

I do understand the emotional response to this issue, but I also know how utterly obsessive the President is regarding national security, a point that draws one heck of a lot of criticism from the very members of this board who now seem, themselves, to have become obsessive about national security.

There is one thing that Bush has not done so far in his Presidency and that is to worry about his immediate popularity. Instead, he has consistently erred on the side of caution in terms of protecting America from further attacks and in doing so, has incurred the wrath of the knee-jerk Bush bashers. This is all very transparent.

All it takes is for Chuck Schumer to show up on TV with a heart-rending display of bereaved 9/11 survivors and the chorus of bashers are singing like canaries.

I am not however ignoring the bipartisan opposition to the sale. There is ample cause for the public and politicians to be concerned, however, the tone of this thread and it's lack of cogent content typifies the usual gibberish from the usual political suspects.


[edit on 2006/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Sorry grady but other than Turkey and Isreal, we have no friends and allies in the middle east, just partners of convenience. I am not simplistic enough to believe that this deal will threaten our security, the firm if the deal goes through will not actually be owning the ports in question but will be managing them, with the labor being done by longshoremen and security by ths Coast Guard. The only real danger is if this company doesn't pay its protection money to the local mafia
. What this is really about in my opinion is the callusness of the Bush admin. and its refusal to be answerable to congress, the courts and the people and Bushes threat to veto any bill shooting down this deal just highlights the fact.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I really haven't lost any sleep over this story.


I have.

Well, not really. But you know what I mean. I am VERY
concerned about this. I don't want ANYONE taking control
of American ports except AMERICAN companies. I know ...
Donald Trump owns a piece of the UAE company and so
you could say that the some share holders are Americans.
BUT ... I'm still very uncomfortable with this and the fact
that G.W. lied about it all - first strongly saying he'd use
his first VETO to pass it .. and then saying he didn't know
about it until the ink was dry on the deal ... He wouldn't
be saying so strongly that he'd VETO something if he only
just found out about it. It all makes me very nervous.

Our ports are wide open as it is. This would just be
sending out party invitations to the wrong people.

(*wrong people = terrorists)



[edit on 2/24/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I find it ironic that while most people are screaming about "security" at the ports, they have little to no concern about the porus borders to the north and south. Yes, Canada and Mexico for those of you aren't aren't very good with maps. Instead of Bush bashing on the non issue of this port deal, you should refocus your efforts to border control. Seems that most of you always pick the wrong battles to fight...

However, I also find it ironic that no one has mentioned that the preivous "controllers" of the ports, the British, are the same British that allowed British Muslems to bomb the subway tunnels and buses in London. See where I'm going here? The controlling British company was no more responsible for security at the ports than they were for British national security. Same for Dubai Ports World. I think that most people choose to ignore that very important point. The Port Authority and the Coast Guard, who are US based, will still be responsible for port security, not the UAE or Dubai Ports World. Same as before. NOTHING has changed with the exception of who writes the checks and who reaps the profits...

Most of what I gather from the general conversation here and through the media is that it is ok for a British company to control the ports, but not a company based in an Arab nation. Great Britian is an ally to the US just like the UAE. What's the difference? Oh yeah, we are at war with ALL Arabs right? Don't let them have our ports, but still give us your oil so we can drive our SUV's. Ironic isn't it...







[edit on 24-2-2006 by Dr. Know]


df1

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr. Know
Yes, Canada and Mexico...

Clear obfuscation of the issue. ATS already has threads concerning immigration or you can start another, however immigration has nothing to do with issue.



NOTHING has changed with the exception of who writes the checks and who reaps the profits...

The Bush administration has demonstrated over and over that everything it does is all about money & oil. Your right nothing has changed as is apparent by the administrations connections to the UAE. I wonder how big a check that Bush's friends are receiving this time while the rest of us suffer our domestic economy going down the toilet?


Great Britian is an ally to the US just like the UAE. What's the difference?

The difference is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were British. If Clinton did this you "faux patriots" would be screaming for his impeachment. Now you jokers are twisting and turning to rationalize these Bush administrations actions which clearly put our national security at risk.

This isn't about politcal ideology, its about applying common sense to a critical national security issue. Either you have common sense or you dont. Those that support turning our ports over the UAE obviously have none.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I agree. . . let Halliburton handle the ports better one of our own making the money than another foreign investment firm taking over our nation once more.

I may not like Halliburton in Iraq but here in the US . . . I guess I don't care.


At least they should take over the military ones.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   


Clear obfuscation of the issue. ATS already has threads concerning immigration or you can start another, however immigration has nothing to do with issue.


Obfuscation of the issue??? Pure facts, nothing less. But, continue to enlighten us with your misguided opinion...

By the way, immigration wasn't even mentioned by me. Please don't take what I posted out of context.



The Bush administration has demonstrated over and over that everything it does is all about money & oil.


It's called a free market economy. If you are the highest bidder on a contract, you win. Simple right? Oh...that is unless you are Arab, correct?? The hypocrisy of the liberal left knows no bounds and you prove that. Besides, name me one president in history that hasn't been about "money and oil". That's the name of the game jr.



The difference is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were British. If Clinton did this you "faux patriots" would be screaming for his impeachment. Now you jokers are twisting and turning to rationalize these Bush administrations actions which clearly put our national security at risk.


CLINTON??? Oh come on now... you can surely do better than that.

Our national security at risk?? How so? Oh, now because an Arab owned company manages the ports, cargo ships full of nuclear weapons will be arriving at the ports on a daily basis?? What part of this don't you understand?? Dubai Ports World only writes and cashs the checks. Answer this question, why would DPW pay 8 billion to aquire the contracts just blow the ports up? That absolutly makes no sense what so ever. Are you really that afraid?

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to type this, but the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD and the PORT AUTHORITY are still in charge of security. NOT THE UAE OR DPW!!! ... read those words carefully before your rebuttal.


This isn't about politcal ideology, its about applying common sense to a critical national security issue. Either you have common sense or you dont. Those that support turning our ports over the UAE obviously have none.


Hypocrisy again. Give us your oil, but nothing more. Unfortunate that you really don't understand the issue at all. Look past your hatred of Bush for a second and see the real issue at hand. Management change...that's all. Just in case you didn't know, the COO of Dubai Ports World is an American...just thought you might like to know the facts. But of course, don't let the facts stand in the way.


df1

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr. Know
By the way, immigration wasn't even mentioned by me.

Please explain how your comments below are not a reference to illegal immigration.


Previously posted by Dr. Know
I find it ironic that while most people are screaming about "security" at the ports, they have little to no concern about the porus borders to the north and south. Yes, Canada and Mexico for those of you aren't aren't very good with maps...



Originally posted by Dr. Know
It's called a free market economy.

An economy that gives preferred treatment to friends of the Bush administration is not a free economy in any shape or form. Of course Im sure that you also believe that supporting the "Patriot Act" makes you a patriot.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   


It goes on further stating that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "We all deal with the UAE on a regular basis. It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."


They've been "involved" alright... I believe 3 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, and they are one of only a few governments who legally recognized the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan... Yes, I think it's safe to say they are "involved"...just maybe not on the same side...

Why don't we just sell some airports to the Saudis while we're at it....or maybe some railroads to Iran?

Well, at least we could save some dough by scrapping the DHS... We wouldn't need it anymore with the doors thrown wide open....


Of course, maybe being about 20 minutes away from one of the ports makes me a little biased...I don't know....

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Although perhaps they should be.

The UAE is sortof the "America" of the middle east.
If you want opportunity and jobs, you go there...
If you want to escape the religious persecution, you go there...
If you want to visit a strip bar, and are muslim, you go there...
If you want to buy small children, you go there..
If you want to hang with Michael Jackson, you go there...
If you want to indulge in any smuggling of illegal imports into the middle east, you go there...
(obviously there are not official statistics for some of these statements)

The UAE started as warlords and smugglers.
And Business is the main "religion" of the government...
Islam requires a state like the UAE to exist...It is a muslim "window to the world" as it were.

It also only has 20% native population... and 80% foreigners...

religious stats of UAE

Indicates 80% suni and >20% shia

as far as Bush goes... he will do what his money tells him to do... and we know what lanquage it speaks... corruption

to be fair, if we want to keep fighting the war on terror, then we need a base against our main enemys in the middle east, and since Saudi Arabia is our main bastion of the extremist enemy, it would have been nice to have airports/bases so close...
We cant use israel, The Saudi king wont allow us to attack him from his own country... and Turkey likes us and all, but we cant buy them... Jordan wont step on toes, and Iraq isn't safe...
so the UAE will be our only hope to attack Saudi Arabia...






[edit on 24-2-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



new topics




 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join