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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Emir of Dubai and Osama Bin Laden were hunting buddys...
At what point will the "faux patriots" see the light?
.




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Emir of Dubai and Osama Bin Laden were hunting buddys...
At what point will the "faux patriots" see the light?
.


When they stop going after every Muslim, and start going after the right ones...
the corrupt ones...
Saudi arabia (our good ol buddy) is the base for the fundamentalist extremist islam of the Taliban... in fact, they even make the Taliban look nice. They have been trading rights with America for decades...

Our right to cheap Oil = Saudi Arabias right to start hundreds of terrorist training camps ON US SOIL (these are also known as Saudi Sponsored Mosques)

It is in Saudi Arabias Interests to have us fighting Iraq, and Iran... because they dont agree with either...

The UAE is just a Saudi wannabe, that has sold out totally.
If we are to think of the UAE, we need to think of them as a company, since that is essentially how they run themselves..



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Bush has said before he would veto stuff, and has yet to do so. I hear another flip-flop from him coming up.


df1

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

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
If we are to think of the UAE, we need to think of them as a company, since that is essentially how they run themselves...

Your "UAE Inc" must be modeled after haliburton, get political connections and then exploit those connections to gain an unfair business advantage. This damn well is not an example of free market economics at work, it is organized crime pure and simple.

This terrorist story they keep feeding us must be nothing more than a sophisticated protection racket.
.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I just read that the UAE gave 1 million (truthout.org) to the Bush presidential library...of course it will be a small library with little in it, cheney the dick will have had it all classified by then



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Why don't you lot just admit that the average Joe, and Jane, on the street's against this deal going ahead because of the media hype (especially from 'news' channels like Fox News) and the fact that they hold racist views of anyone or anything from the Middle East (or any Muslim country for that matter), or at least they're slightly racist and ignorant of the state of affairs in the UAE.

Here's an article, over at strategypage.com, that looks at precisely that; the state of affairs in the UAE and the UAE's relationship with the USA;

First, a look at the United Arab Emirates is in order. This is a country that has been a long-standing ally of the United States since 1971. The UAE was part of the coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and also has supported the United States in the war on terror (including, among other things, providing access to a deep-water berth that can accommodate aircraft carriers, use of a training facility for air-to-air training facility, airfields, and logistics support). It is a country that has proven largely inhospitable to al-Qaeda (instead, the focus is on business), sent forces to Afghanistan to protect the construction of a hospital that they donated and built, and also has sent humanitarian assistance to Iraq while also providing a location for training Iraqi police. In 2002, the UAE also captured a major al-Qaeda figure, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and handed him over to the United States despite threats from the terrorist organization. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the UAE donated $100 million for the relief efforts. Both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace have described the relationship the United States has with United Arab Emirates as "very close" and "superb". It would be interesting to know what sort of information Michelle Malkin has that would override the judgment of Rumsfeld and Pace. Her characterization of the United Arab Emirates as "demonstrably unreliable" is not just factually challenged, it is slap in the face to the strongest ally the United States has in the Persian Gulf.


One of the other things that has been ignored in the anti-UAE diatribes from Malkin is the fact that the United Arab Emirates is a Middle Eastern country where religious tolerance is the rule. The UAE's constitution guarantees freedom of religion (albeit it declares Islam as the official religion), and largely permits religious freedom. In 2003, the UAE shut down the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which was publishing material that promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
You can bet that the politicians who oppose this deal aren't worried about a decline in national security, as they have never valued national security in the past. What they are concerned with is, as usual, using emotion to garner political support and to weaken the President by alienating a valued ally in the war on terror. National security be damned. Folks seem to forget, or at least to ignore, the fact that the US did not engineer this deal. The UK company sold out to the UAE company who now wants to do business with the US. But of what value are the facts when you can stir up an international brouhaha at the President's expense.

[edit on 2006/2/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Hmm, if you oppose Bush...blah blah blah. Yea, we've heard it before, never oppose Bush. Let's talk in facts, not rhetoric, mmk? It'll lead to a much more valuable discussion, I promise.

In reality, this is a bi-partisan movement including Bill Frist, not necessarily to block the deal, but to give Congress the time to review it. Congress is an integral part of the administrative structure of our government who should not be denied a part of the decision-making process.

At first, I thought that, why does it matter where this country is from, and in reality, it does not matter too much. But, the fact is, that this is a foreign government-owned company, and there are regulations regarding such.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

PeoplePC


Kind of fishy, eh?

DPW's top executives, too, are a multi-national bunch: Last month, President Bush appointed David Sanborn, a Dubai Ports World executive from Virginia, to be the new Maritime Administrator for the Department of Transportation. Sanborn presumably would not have been a member of the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments that gave U.S. approval to the takeover, which is scheduled to receive court approval in the U.K. on March

Washington Post

It's the "principle of the matter" to be skeptical about this deal.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I'll bet Monday's lunch money that when all the politicians are finished with the politically motivated posturing and histrionics, the deal will go through, because ultimately there will be no reason not to grant the contract, unless we want to declare war on the UAE. Congress will do what it will to flex its might, but unless something about the deal is illegal, there will nothing that they will be willing to sacrifice politically to stop it.

There were similar concerns a couple of decades ago when the dollar was weak against the yen and the Japanese were buying up property in the US. The truth is that any business doing business in the US is at the mercy of the US and is unlikely to blow a good business operation with stupid shenanigans, especially when they already have a strong history of alliance with the US. There already are enough Muslims in this country that our enemies don't need a port contract to do their dirty deeds. How many Muslim cab drivers are there in New York City?

Do I care who holds the contract for the ports? I can't really make that claim because I didn't know that a UK company held it previously. My position is simply this. This kind of thing goes on all the time. US companies do business all over the world. All kinds of foreign businesses do business here. It's the way of the world and we have policies to control these things.

When the hoopla is over, the deal will stand.

[edit on 2006/2/25 by GradyPhilpott]


df1

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This kind of thing goes on all the time.

Murder and larceny been around for many years, but this does not make murder meritorious, nor larceny legal. -- (paraphrasing Sam Irvin of watergate fame)
.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
If ever there was a textbook example of taking a statement out of context to make an irrelevant point that has to be it.

This is my original statement:

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My position is simply this. This kind of thing goes on all the time. US companies do business all over the world. All kinds of foreign businesses do business here. It's the way of the world and we have policies to control these things.


I was speaking of legal international trade and business operations, not murder and larceny. The firm that used to run our ports was a UK firm. Now, an Arab ally has bought that company and wants to continue. The deal has been scrutinized and approved.

If you want to quote me go ahead, but please try to read enough of the post to get my point. Otherwise, it only makes you look superficial.


df1

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The deal has been scrutinized and approved.

Oh yeah right. It was scrutinized to such a degree that the president was not even aware of the deal.


it only makes you look superficial.

Perhaps you should choose your Bushspeak more carefully, thus making any remarks from me unnecessary.

But since you brought it up, let do look at your wisdom in its entirety.


Do I care who holds the contract for the ports? I can't really make that claim because I didn't know that a UK company held it previously. My position is simply this. This kind of thing goes on all the time. US companies do business all over the world. All kinds of foreign businesses do business here. It's the way of the world and we have policies to control these things.

First you plead ignorance, then you proceed to claim that this goes on all the time.

Are you ignorant of the subject or not? Do you even care?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join