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.

 

Why is President Bush so adament about transferring control of US seaports to UAE control?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe[/i

This chaos is not going to culminate into anything "good", it is most definatedly leading up to something that we (you and I) cant even imagine.




I doubt that seriously! The only question I have concern about is the one about the 45 day review. I don't see anything wrong with the deal as long as proper channels were followed! I do however have a problem with circumventing standards. I do not see any reason to not follow proper channels and excercise every option as far as investigating, even if redundant, for the sake of national security.

Condi Rice said, ""Port security will continue to be in the very capable hands of the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Pontrol," she said. "This is really a commercial deal. There are commercial deals in U.S. ports around the country with other companies, other foreign companies and we address those commercial concerns and the security arrangements because we continue to control security. Security arrangements in U.S. ports won't change regardless of whether this deal goes through or not."

Security should not even be an issue. As far as Bush knowing,

As far as the Bush's envolvement Fran Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism said,""Rarely do these wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement," Townsend said. "This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection and any security concerns the Department of Homeland Security addressed in a security agreement with DP world."

Above quotes taken from external source:

www.foxnews.com...




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
because hes stupid why have our enemy have control?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
You know, the sale of ports would seem a normal affair were it not happening against a background of frenzied concern about national security, all sorts of "orange" levels, ethnic Arabs detained in the US for God knows how long now, the annoying procedure to have your shoes and smelly socks checked at the airport etc ad nauseum.

I heard a lecture from a high ranking govt expert on security, and he said that the risk of some kind of a WMD attack was high, and that the ports were of primary concern in that respect. That person was a nuclear physisist in his past career, I read some of his works and have him in high regard.

If the threat is real, there is no reason to weaken the national ownership of strategic locations like ports and we don't need to hear from our President that we "don't need to worry about security". It's that simple. Can you imagine what golden opportunities of infiltration, absolutely legit, our enemies can get at these ports?

Otherwise, if the threat is not real, I want the govt to apologize for the hoax and get rid of the security checks at the airports and just go to a more sane life of pre 9-11 era.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by the news paper man
because hes stupid why have our enemy have control?


It's really unfortunate that so many people really don't get this...AT ALL!

The UAE is NOT our enemy! They have been a very strong ally of the US.

They only write the checks and reap the profits from the deal. THAT IS ALL! The US is still in charge of security, not the UAE! Dubai Ports is acutally made up of a board of multi national people. Its COO is an AMERICAN!

What is it going to take for you people to see the real issues here?

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Dr. Know]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Whoflunggum,

Needless to say, its political suicide. There is no evidence pointing to any 45 day maulling it over by this administration.

More mundanely, my mother has to take off her shoes when she travels from Phoenix to see me, but we are putting the ports under the control of friendly but questionable people?


And what happened to news coverage about this little investigation today? They switched to the "Katrina" findings real quick, just as the other got started.

I know, i know, i got too much time on my hands lately.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Have any of you read what is actually going on with this sale? About the committees and the gov't agencies who have already cleared and investigated the entire sale, the company and the ports. Bush is attempting not to anger the Arabs in America with the ignorant ramblings of congressmen who state "this company will bring terrorism to this country!!" and are trying to block the sale.

Folks, lots of port workers make nothing for wages, and it is easy to bribe anyone with enough cash. That is how things are smuggled (drugs).

How is Bush lining his pockets on this one?

also, the security is still the concern of the US and customs. Are you people ignorant enough to think that they will be providing and circumventing security?
Amen to this finally a little commen sense. Security will still be "our" concern. I doubt that this a conspiracy to start WWIII more like an attempt to have the ports run effectively. It isn't an attempt to Union Bust either since the unions will still have to be negotiated with.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
How many of you griping about this actually voted for him???


But honestly, I've known from the very beginning, back when bush was governor of my state what he was all about. He cares nothing about the people and only about his power and 'special interests'.





Why would the President, who has expressed so much "concern" regarding terrorism suddenly be uncharacteristically "unconcerned" about terrorism when the perception of terrorism is so obvious to everyone else -- Democrats and Republicans included?



Why does this suprise you?? Remember how he was all about catching bin laden, THEN he "truly wasn't concerned about bin laden" now he is again?

It's just a dog and pony show folks, bush is NOT real. He is the worst despot of a president we have ever had and if we survive this administration we will feel the effects from it for years, decades and probably more to come. (Somehow I doubt seriously we will be around that long)

I've always questioned the 'relationship' between bush and the saudi royal family.. (And God only knows who else he and his family is in bed with over there)


This is what Infowars.com has to say about all of this:

www.infowars.com...



Buckle your seatbelts folks, it's only going to get worse.





[edit on 23-2-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
It's been a while since I last posted, but here goes.

First, this is America, and the ports should be ran by American companies using American workers. I know that is not how things work but that was needed to be said.

Second, didn't anybody pick up on what Bush said yesterday? First, in the morning he said that he would veto any bill sent through congress that is aimed at blocking the deal. Then, later in the day he said he had no idea about this deal in the first place. If you ask me this is just more BS from Bush. Once again his story changed from one thing to another. Why veto a bill if you don't even know the paticulars about the reason the bill is being written. I laugh at all the contradictions from this administration on everything from 9/11, Iraq, the border issue, to this so called deal.

If this deals goes through, then the heck with taking my shoes off at the airport and this quasi-police state being created in the name of security (even though that is how I always felt).

I do not live in fear of terrorist, I live in fear of our government. No matter WHO is in charge.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
UAE is an ally in the war on terror. Our president is trying to not fan the fire of Moslem bashing and again, no credit.

www.uae.org.ae...

UAE is a very liberal yet Islamic state. It was a group of seven states that incorporated themselves in 1971.

The comments here are so hypocritcal it is ridiculous. The USCG handles port security after 9/11, and it has already been commented that there has been government investigation into this company months prior to the deal.

Keep it up with this "it's not safe" rhetoric, and infuriate the Moslem community in the US some more by stating "don't sell to arabs" along with the left. they are going to shoot themselves in the foot over this one.

This is not control, it is ownership.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This is not control, it is ownership.


esdad71, you are an exceptionally intelligent poster. Why then do I detect imperfection in the logic here, in the above statement of yours? In the corporate world, ownership is expressed in number of shares that translates into votes of the board which translates into decisions and action items, and this is control in my book.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Because Bush is kissing up to the UAE so that we can keep that gigantic airbase on their soil so we can kick Iran's butt when we have to. Its politics as usual, for years the UAE has allowed our military on their soil, and they come calling to buy up some US "access", we are obligated to give them serious consideration.....I think some of you foreigners who hate America (and even some American Democrats) would be complaining if this deal was prohibited because then the US would be "discriminating" against Islam!


I don't support this move, but I support our President. I personally think Bush should just say, "look, people from your country attacked our country in the name of their country and a Holy War----why don't you get real? Until this blows over and you can keep your citizens in check, the answer is a HELL NO!"



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Though I dont agree with President Bush on this, I find this rather funny, As liberals seem to love those Nice, Harmless arabs.. Until they come to close to home i guess?

Being against this type of thing would normaly get you labled a Neo-Con racist...
Nothing makes sense anymore...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
my two cents.


.01 - the bigger issue is why we are outsourcing this at all, to any nation. Americans need these jobs.

.01 - most knee jerk oppostion to this is racial profiling, plain and simple




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
my two cents.


.01 - the bigger issue is why we are outsourcing this at all, to any nation. Americans need these jobs.

.01 - most knee jerk oppostion to this is racial profiling, plain and simple



Answer to .01.01 - We suck at port management. I read recently that of the 25 biggest players in port management, only one is a U.S. held company. (We also suck at producing cheap electronics and have outsourced that work to Asia...We suck at manning call centers inexpensively and have outsourced that work to India/Vietnam, etc.)

Answer to .01.02 - Agreed...to some extent...though the transfer of control of these ports does not translate to a security risk, there is one thought to consider: The company in charge of managing these ports is responsible for managing and coordinating port traffic. The ports they will control in Texas are responsible for a lot of war materiel traffic. By simply re-queuing the inbound/outbound vessels, some reasonable pressure could be placed on the US military's ability to mobilize.

Final point...the only thing that's really hinkey about the sale is the conditions placed upon it which, effectively, insulate the UAE-based corporation from judicial inquiry from the US. For some reason the administration has placed this company in a position to enjoy benefits similar to Executive Priviledge. I have heard talk of other "Free trade" based negotiations between the US and the UAE and it is possible that this "prosecutorial insulation" is designed to grease the skids for that larger pact.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by chaosrain]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This is not about 'nice arabs', lets sell them something. This is about the ownership of company who runs the ports, but they do not 'control' the security.

Also, the UAE is not going to send citizens to steall all the jobs. It was british owned,so any of the exec positions will more than likely be filled, and then the new one bought in or hired. This is standard business practice. There are unions also that control all the workers and if you think Vinny and the boys are going to take a hit, you are incorrect.

The USCG does alot of major port security, and there are many things in place since 9/11 to try to make it better. You can look at the attmept at the war on drugs in the 80s and 90's and stopping what get's in. If you try to smuggle coc aine into the Port of Tampa, you'll get busted. Send a 45 ft scarab into Sarasota bay and drop it, no problem.

I think it is paranoia to think that a british owned company is any different from one based in the UAE. If someone wants to smuggle something in bad enough, all they needs is money or cross from Canada. Greed in america will turn a patriot into a traitor.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well it's hard to get suitcase nukes on a airplane, this way they can get in without having to go through security! Who needs Baltimore anyways.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The looters are paying up for their accomodations in the Free Zone, probably out on the palms.

They probably would have preferred the Maldives, but they're inhospitable these days, or so I hear.

America got sold out to fund their great escape. These schmucks at the highest levels of power have been doing it for years. Clinton was no better. It's been arranged for some time, and all for the best I'm starting to think. This country isn't capable of wielding power responsibly, so it only makes sense that folks would conspire to remove most of that power through economic sabotage.

JAFZ companies are fair competition for domestic enterprises that actually have to abide by things called laws?
Americans should slip deeper and deeper into poverty and debt while a few select corporations make billions off the collective misery using international tax shelters to avoid paying billions more in taxes?
What logic is it, exactly, that posesses people to trust these criminal businessmen asshole liars, maybe the same logic that leads senseless women to throw themselves at convicted rapists and murderers?

You know what I think everytime I see those relationships? Y'all were made for each other. Marks and sharks fit together like peas in a pod. They appear to DESPERATELY NEED each other. On a related note, when two big, dumb, predictably violent animals are mating or fighting, what does the sensible individual do? He gets the Hell out of the way!

Whatever. One can oppose this deal without being a racist. But don't worry COle, you can still be one if you want.


Edit: Chaosrain
You raised some interesting points, I gotta check them out later though.


[edit on 23-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I am with esdad71 on this. I have never seen so much panic knee jerk in my life. Why is the UAE purchase of a British private comany causing such a ruckus? We are not giving up our ports to the UAE. As for saying they have links to terrorist, that is the pot calling the kettle black. The UAE is helping us more than any other country. If everyone is so concerned about nukes coming in the country, they should be looking at our southern border. This is all about union crime bosses loosing some of their levrage and control.

We cannot blame the UAE anymore than ourselves about 911!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 23-2-2006 by duncanidaho]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
One can oppose this deal without being a racist. But don't worry COle, you can still be one if you want.




Hey hey hey.. I hate eveyone equaly thank you very much.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
My opinion? Its easy. He is leaving office soon and for good. These guys all look for some sort of 'windfall" to enrich thier coffers for thier platinum years.

Ill bet you that after he goes out of office, Bush give a few lectures in UAE etc. for big $$$$$. Thats the deal. it was no cooincidence that reagan went on his Japan tour and gave speeches to polite audiences. I mean thay cannot just hand him a check eh?







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join