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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
taking the easy way out and leaving u.s in an bad spot.selling of its ports is anti u.s and seems almost weird to see a leader talk about protecting it shelf from attacks them open its ports to outside the u.s interests.every see the movie sum of all fears.all i can say is wow not a chess move i would make.......




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
If it were a private company, I'd be less concerned. But this is a company owned by a foreign government. I don't care if they're an enemy or an ally. I'd be against it no matter the country. Even our allies are more concerned about their own interests than ours.

Also, what will this company actually be doing? I haven't seen anything that actually spells out what their role is what they have control over.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I think this is over-reaction, mega knee jerking to the extreme. The UAE is a valuable ally, and are on the far end of the moderation scale.

Maybe we should just let the mob run all the port? I'm sure their version of "security" would work out just fine, with all the knee-breaking and all......



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
2 years from now who will you blame?

www.house.gov...

There are 350 ports in the US.




Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard is enforcing a wide range of security measures on all ships entering U.S. ports. The Coast Guard has issued a temporary final rule changing the 24-hour Notice of Arrival requirement for ships entering U.S. ports to 96 hours before arrival at the first U.S. port. New special rules apply for all vessels carrying dangerous cargoes and additional information is also required in the Advance Notice of Arrival. The notice must now include a listing of all persons on board, crew and passengers, with date of birth, nationality, along with the appropriate passport or mariner’s document number. The Notice must also include the vessel name, country of registry, call sign, official number, the registered owner of the vessel, the operator, the name of the classification society, a general description of the cargo, and date of departure from the last port along with that port’s name.


This is fact folks. It is not like we are giving the keys to this company and they have 'diplomatic immunity' to do what they want. and we are giving them the support and money they need.




Prior to September 11th, the Coast Guard suffered from significant funding shortfalls. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Coast Guard was forced to reduce law enforcement operations by up to 30 percent due to insufficient funds. Both the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution and the House passed Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 1699) increased Coast Guard funding levels by $250-$300 million respectively to correct ongoing critical funding shortfalls. These funding shortfalls are similar to those experienced by the Department of Defense, including spare parts shortages and personnel training deficits. .


We should be more concerned with shutting down the borders from Canada and Mexico, but as long as there is an ACLU, this will not happen. UAV's and funding for more troops would be great but would be looked upon as big brother tactics and funding excess to the liberal members of congress.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/02/23/BUGESHCVK01.DTL


Please follow the link and read the article about the other countires, including China, who own ports in the US. Local unions load and unload the ships, and the workers are also locals. USCG does the water ways, and customs once unloaded.

What is the difference between the British and the UAE?





[edit on 23-2-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
esdad71 is hitting the nail on the head like a framer nailing off plywood on a sunny friday. This is whole thing is political knee jerk in the biggest way. Hey even Jimmy Carter gives his okay. oopps. lol



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
The ultimate goal here is to allow WMD's into our ports and scream "POLICE STATE" at the very least.

There's also the possibility of one or more going off in pre-designated areas of the country.

One way or another, the powers that be will get this accomplished.


No, it is the terrorists who are attempting to get weapons and cells active in our country, not the government. You give them TO MUCH credit. Do you truly, without a doubt, think that the US government would be dumb enough to sign a deal, then ALLOW the WMD to enter through one of those ports?

If you say they are too dumb, then they are not smart enough to support your original arguement. Now that is a one liner......



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
This will give the Arabs direct control over shipping our military equipment out of Texas in Corpus Christy and other ports. i believe that a shipment would be hijacked or just simply disappear. I don't think these Muslims would fight other muslims to protect American Military Equipment.

It is a raw deal for America and we must not accept this or take it lightly.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Okay, I say let an American company step up to the plate and bid higher for the British private company. Hey, it's the way of the free market. If not that then what is the other option, Socialism?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM
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.


Well I suggest you look everything up wolf, of course your not in the philly area are you? It's alright to be a little nervous, considering that it's going to ruin the economy around here even further. Does no one care? Not really, if someone get's wealthy it's alright. Don't go torwards the gullible route my friend, don't go torwards the screwy conspiracy theories either. There is a threat, and our security is lax. I suggest you get off your chair and stop listening to what other people say, or what the media tells you. Were not safe, and homeland security is just another small room in the whitehouse were a guy is sitting at his desk lining his pockets. Let's do this ourselves, trust out intuition, stop listening to what the president says, and do what your heart tells you to do. I really hope you have fun sitting there in front of your tv, racking up debt on your credit cards while being fed that nothing's going to happen. This country is in control and things are getting better. Watch while they try to tell you there's more jobs out there, when in reality, inflation is going to hurt us in the long run.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
American companies have a HUGE interest in doing business with the UAE! Here is, in part, why we do business with them!

Lockheed Martin has a $6.4 BILLION contract for 344 military aircraft (F-16 mods ie. block 60) thru 2011 that includes spare parts, maintinence and replacements indefinitly. This contract also employs 3500 American workers! (FYI signed off by Bill Clinton in 1998)

Boeing has a civilian contract, the largest single order in Boeings history as of 2004, with the UAE for 42 777's at $9.7 BILLION that includes another $2 BILLION for replacement engines! No idea how many Americans that one employs!

Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company just inked a deal worth $83 million for 8 AB139 helicopters!

This is just a small example of American (and Euro, see Airbus deals with UAE also) not W's interest in doing business with the UAE. Almost all companies in the UAE are "owned" by the government, to do business with them you work with the government.


The UAE is not a backward A-Rab sand pit, they are poised to become a global economic leader! The UAE has some major faults (ie. one of 3 contries to have a Taliban embassy) but they are no Saudi Arabia or cough cough Syria. The UAE wants to join the civilized world community not destroy Western civilization and install Sharia Law.

www.uaeinteract.com...



[edit on 23-2-2006 by CasualOne]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I don't care if you want to call me racist. I won't go eat in an Arab resturant, I won't buy gas from an arab owned station, I won't even eat a snowcone if an Arab is pushing the cart.

Bush and his anti Arab/Muslim fear mongering worked real well on me.

Now for him to chump out the country for who knows what reason is totally
beyond me. Why can't he get his story straight. Are they friends or are they the bad guys and killers.

Who's to say the UAE dosen't seceretly embrace the jihad and this is just a trojan horse to get us to lower our guard and then Boom.

The Presidents family has a long history with the UAE, I'll bet this has something to do with it.

Remember Japan and Germany and Italy were our trading partners before WWII.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by whaaa]

[edit on 23-2-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Why is President Bush so adament about transferring control of US seaports to UAE control?
...
What is the President's motivation to take such a controversial position?


I think my post here answers (at least in part) those questions. Great questions!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bootmaker
You mention the Horses

I often have visions.

My last one was about horses.

Two horses were running in a lush green valley. At peace with one another and enjoying each others company.
A third one comes up to them and joins there party.
One turns into a mule and walks away.




All I can say is that your "insightfulness" has contributed greatly to this discussion.

Now, sarcasm aside, what in God's name does your "dream" have to do with anything? Is this the latest innovation in "troll tactics"? If not, then surely there must have been a better place to post this "valuable and insightful vision or dream".



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bootmaker
This will give the Arabs direct control over shipping our military equipment out of Texas in Corpus Christy and other ports. i believe that a shipment would be hijacked or just simply disappear. I don't think these Muslims would fight other muslims to protect American Military Equipment.

It is a raw deal for America and we must not accept this or take it lightly.


How? Have any of you even read about port security, or who works there? Or what the UAE is? This is some of the most racist garbage I ahve ever seen. They don't employ jsut Moslems, where is everyone getting that idea? I know you didn't read any of the links I posted, because if you did you would not post remarks like this.

USCG monitors all sea traffic, and Dep of Customs handles the ports. It is all local workers.

There is a bigger problem with our canadian and mexican borders than our ports, but in order to protect them we would ned surviellence, UAV's and more troops/border guards. This costs money, and the ACLU has a cow everytime it thinks big brother is watching but it msut be done.

Bush is trying to show on a global scale that our country will not allow ethnicity to affect our judgement. If the US denied the sale, you bleeding hearts would be stating that Bush and Co hate all Arabs.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
President Bush, speaking on the issue of the sale of Port management, has said, "Fear not".

Well, I don't know how to respond to this statement. I can't believe that there are some issue that we need to fear and there are, it would seem, that we don't need to have any concerns about at all. Thank God that we have President Bush to be able to discern the differences between the two.

Frankly, I'm confused about this issue. I cannot believe that President Bush would be so dead set on allowing this sale to go through. Allowing the U.A.E. (United Arab Emirates) to control the ports involved in this deal would, in my opinion, be a serious security risk and I am not alone in this thinking. Democratic AND Republican politicians are also questioning the prudence of this transaction. And, although the U.A.E. are our "friends", our "friends" were deeply involved in the 911 World Trade Building attack.

It has been raised the we have to go on with the transfer of port management because of lucrative arm sale contracts with the U.A.E., after all they are worth billions of dollars. But, I have to ask, what is the security of the United States worth? Besides, friend or not, I have reservations about selling any Arab country arms. After all, the U.S. was soundly criticized about their past arm sales to pre '90 Iraq. The argument at that time was that Iraq was our "friend" as well.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I agree with those who think this is racism.
It seems to me both sides (here with the UAE purchase and in other parts of the world with the cartoon issue) are being whipped into a furious frenzy.
And, it's working. We are falling prey to manufactured terror--created by whom? Perhaps by those in power?

This is being done to divert our attention from something else.
To keep us on edge.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
well the breaking news of the moment is Dubai has offered to delay the deal...just saw it on tv.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Um, the great majority of our stevedoring and port services are contracted to foreign companies. China, Singapore, the UK, and France I think top the list. This is the price you pay as Americans for prying open the rest of the worlds markets in the name of free trade. Sooner or later we have to practice what we preach.

Of course, depending on the deal of the weak- if it's Japan buying our computer firms, China buying our oil companies, or the UAE buying our ports, the capitalists who own American firms will be playing on all your patriotic xenophobic impulses to support their interests, because its easier than actually being competetive in a global marketplace.

But, if they want to sell American scrap metal to China, or rice to Japan, or military hardware to the UAE, all of a sudden, they'll start getting you all to sing songs about free trade going hand in hand with democracy.

Put up, or shut up.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   


Of course, depending on the deal of the weak- if it's Japan buying our computer firms, China buying our oil companies, or the UAE buying our ports, the capitalists who own American firms will be playing on all your patriotic xenophobic impulses to support their interests, because its easier than actually being competetive in a global marketplace.


This was good, I thought.


It is easier than being competetive. I just started another thread about vietnamese catfish targetted by southern senators because it endangers the inefficient and inferior American catfish industry.

I actually oppose the ports deal, I think it's a bad idea to have foreign-owned ports on domestic soil. The tax implications are especially shudder-inducing.

Dubai, I think, fits the very definition of a mercenary state.

England and America got drunk, had a bit of a brawl, but we made up in the morning and we've been family ever since. Just like proper Scottish family (one day the manchild Scotland will grow up and leave the nest successfully; can't live on mum's couch forever lad, up and at 'em! )


In any case, the shame of it all is that this is textbook cronyism. Friend of a friend payoffs, it's so unbelievably textbook! Totally in line with what everyone has come to expect from American political institutions of the last few decades, near-total corruption.


The primary benefit of having a domestic company own our ports is that it makes the FBI's job a HELL of a lot easier. They're just about the only agency I even remotely trust anymore, because they're big enough to resist ideological homogenization, or whatever you want to call it when the monkeys run the zoo. The CIA purged itself of dissent, and the NSA won't stop talking in a spooky voice or come out from behind the curtain.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

It is easier than being competetive. I just started another thread about vietnamese catfish targetted by southern senators because it endangers the inefficient and inferior American catfish industry.



There are certainly valid security implications, like in any deal of its type, which should be examined carefully... but free of the obfuscation which so often accompanies them... the review process under a piece of law called the Exon-Florio amendment I think is the current procedure.

The catfish industry! I heard a while ago that a lot of the MIA groups were funded by senators with large holdings in the shrimp and catfish industries, which are mainly threatened by competition from Vietnam... go figure! (Not to diminish the importance of MIA groups, but there's a lot of cynical manipulation of that issue for financial gain that you don't hear about.)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join