It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:24 AM
What is the differecne if it is British or UAE owned, please explain becasue none of these "should not be in foriegn hands? BS was not brought up the months prior to 9/11 when the original sale happened.

This would mean that it is OK for brit, but not an arab, to won property in the US. Man, that is pretty racist. I understand your concern but this is nothing new.

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:13 AM
This goes beyind politics.. There are connections between UAE and the Bush's. Definitley the Carlysle group. I can see straight trhu it...pounding our heads with images of WMD and angry muslims, now expect us to let them take over ports. There is a reason behind everything...I'm sure this one has little to do with "business", and much more to do with possible behind the scenes favors, or deals.....It's can most of the country AND congress be against this, but bush still insist?....

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:45 AM
only the owership of the port mangement compamy is going to change, it will still be American Union workers running the show. It's amazing the amount of people who obviously did no research and thought that the employess were going to be replaced with Islamo fanatics.

Also are you aware that China currently runs 4 American Ports (happened under Clinton) and just recently we were threaten to be nuked by their crazy retired general.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by ferretman2]

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:06 AM
Lots of good information and good posts. The general theme here so far has been "they are just buying our ports, not a sovereignty" WE are still in charge of the security.. blah blah blah.

On the surface'it all makes sense but on a deeper level? It STINKS. Do you guys not understand the basic concept of 'conflict of interest'?

That said..


Also are you aware that China currently runs 4 American Ports (happened under Clinton) and just recently we were threaten to be nuked by their crazy retired general.

Very true. The US has been getting 'bought out' slowly but surely for quite awhile now so this indeed is nothing new but do we have to support it just because it's not new??

And something else to consider.. There has ALWAYS been a hole in our port security. Take a read at this:

Right now the thing that is really irking me the most is how bush said he was "out of the loop" on this 'deal'.. BS.. Puhleeze!.. A deal like this involving his 'very close friends' in the BILLIONS of dollars and he 'didn't know anything about it'?? Makes me wonder why he even said that..

I don't care what any of you say. This thing STINKS to high Heaven.

Esdad, you make alot of good points but I have a question for you:

How many ports in OTHER countries do WE own?

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Kool Aide Sipper
"We are a nation that is addicted to oil"


Mod NOTE: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:46 PM
Allow me to through in some prospective here......

Even if a UAE state owned company doesn't even touch anything at the port in their management of it and that they use America personnel at all levels.........the bottom line is that they will be privy to sensative information about the ports operations and functions that could compromise our national security.............

Now why is Bush so determined to pass this transaction??

Forget the idea of a conspriacy to allow another 9/11 incident to occur because that could be done just as easily with our porous borders on our Southern under belly......he wouldn't need to "fix" the port to get another act in this country with all the traffic coming in from Mexico for an excuse to......say......go attack Iran as the reason for it.......

Forget the idea that he has a tie in at a personal level with any business group.......that would be personal suicide for him and anyone else.......there would not be enough personal interest accross all in the Bush administration or Washington in general to hide this transaction and push it through in a conspriracy type manner.......'s the deal........

UAE is part of OPEC..........and, we are in bed with OPEC and trying to keep all other oil producing countries in bed with the US dollar exclusively backing oil trading worldwide..........a US oil dollar hemegony has taken over from the days of "dollar diplomacy" as we called it in the past.....

I'll bet a dollar to a dime that there is a deal behind this port transaction that has something to do with control of oil dollar trading with UAE as they are a key central bank component of OPEC.....

In this case.....follow the money.......follow the oil.........put them both together and you will find why we seem to make "so many mistakes" in middle east diplomacy as it relates to terrorism only because in reality there is an "under the radar" alternative reason for our actions that involve our need to keep the dollar propped up with oil trade.......

Our economy and way of life is addicted to the trading of US dollars in oil to provide instrinic value for our fiat paper money as much as it is to the actual useage of oil itself.....

...and as a result this "other" addiction to dollar oil trade of keeping the US petrodollar hemegony....we create a need for the oil consuming countries of the world to build up reserves of our Fed Reserve fiat printed dollars....and some of our diplomacy appears willing to compromise our security and play police state with the middle east and any other oil producing country in order to maintain our economic status quo....

....yes there is terrorism in the World, but it is a convenient excuse for actions of other reasons that our way of life and economy is addicted to..... you remember the day Bush landed on a US aircraft carrier and announced to the service personnel "mission complete" not long after we toppled Saddam's rule??............Well, for most Americans they though Mission complete was the removal of Saddam's dictatorship......but do you know what happened that very day he announced this?

Iraq's oil trade was switch from Euro's back to US dollars............that was the real reason why "mission complete" was stated on that day.......not that we secured the country..........

"Nothing in history happens by mistake" - Winston Churchill

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:40 PM
Obviously, most of you are not reading Esad's posts at all. He seems to be the only one in here making any rational points. Have any of you been listening while he has said on numerous occasions, port security is still in the hands of the US. Its just a management change. All I see on this thread is people throwing out ways to try to throw Bush into this mix as some kind of co conspirator in a plot to sneak a nuke into the US. Doesnt seem very rational to me. If I were any of you, I would go back and read what Esad has very wisely and numerously pointed out, that this is business as usual, a privatly owned company can sell if they so choose, correct or no?

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:25 PM
Yes, the security of the seaports would still be in the hands of the U.S. government, primarily U.S. Customs and the U.S. Coast Guard. However, the management of each of the seaports would certainly be aware of the security arrangements that are in place. In effect, information that would otherwise be classified would be in the hands of the United Arab Emirates.

All right, so what if details regarding seaport security are in the hands of the United Arab Emirates? After all, they are allies of the United States. And besides, other U.S. seaports are owned and operated by foreign governents such as Britain, Japan and even Red China. What would make the United Arab Emirates deal different from the foreign ownership by another nation?

Well for one thing, Britain, Japan and Red China (though the Chinese raise issues all of their own) have never had ties between their governments and Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda. And as far as the government of the U.A.E. having access to security plans might not in itself be a security risk, it would from a practical standpoint be easier for someone "in" the U.A.E. government to obtain these security details than it would for this information to be accessed from the U.S. government agencies involved.

As far as racism, well that's a matter of opinion but I would rather go with the fact that we are simply being suspicious and would rather error on the side of caution. Many said that the U.S. was racist during WWII against the Japanese and even the Germans. It's interesting to note that Americans have overcome their institutional racism against Asians and Central Europeans.

Face it.....the enemy of the U.S. happens to be Arabic in origin. Of course we have Arab f riends but it would be foolhardy not to be suspicious of those who "meet the profile" of our enemy; Arabic, Muslim, strongly and anti Israeli.
I know, I know....this would describe many in the Middle East who aren't necessarily against the U.S......but, erring on the side of caution....if the shoe fits...

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:40 AM
Finally, an intelligent and rational argument made by someone who sees error in this deal. I dont agree with what you said personally benevolent tyrant, but it was a rational well thought out statment. The UAE would not risk their country being suspect in some kind of plot by letting anything that would hurt the US through their shipping. I dont see anything bad coming of this in my opinion. The UAE are looking for business and that is what they are getting.

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:44 AM

Seems that there are a few more ports, not only 6. However, here are a few other facts about the UAE.

Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.

Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.

So it is not a terror supporting state anymore. The fear is that they could be corrupted or influenced as other nations that we were once friendly with but this is about money, not terror to the UAE. If a terror cell wanted to smuggle somethig, they could contact drug runners and they would learn exactly where to go and who to bribe. Again, this is about contorling who writes the paychecks, not security.

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:12 AM
Esdad, I appreciate your faith.
You are much happier than i am at this point.

Here's why i'm not happy:'

So its hard for many of us to beleive these people are "reformed" and they are on the good side. There are so many questions and so many doubts out there......

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Face it.....the enemy of the U.S. happens to be Arabic in origin. Of course we have Arab f riends but it would be foolhardy not to be suspicious of those who "meet the profile" of our enemy; Arabic, Muslim, strongly and anti Israeli.
I know, I know....this would describe many in the Middle East who aren't necessarily against the U.S......but, erring on the side of caution....if the shoe fits...

This is the same thing Myself among several othere have been saying on various issues, And the funny this is this is the attitude which got all of us labled Anti-arab, Islamaphobic, racists..

Yet the very people who would normaly call myslef and the others these things, are now taking this very same stance..

And its "OK" for some reason because it goes against what Bush wants..

The hypocracy is just pathetic..

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:00 AM
Most here are missing what is going on entirely. This sale isn't about security(a boundless, vacuous, and unachievable concept), it is about Global Capitalism. Bush, et. al. has always, will always be about advancing the interests of Big Business. Why does this surprise anyone? It is THE central theme of the Neo-con/PNAC movement. Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" will always choose what is best for Humanity!(Tongue firmly implanted in cheek).

The entire Planet has been moving inexorably toward a fully Global economy since the Industrial Revolution. This will not stop until we have become a fully integrated Global, Economic, and Political reality, or we have turned back time via some huge catastrophe that returns the relatively few survivors back into self sufficient hunter-gatherers.

It is the nature of the Human Beast to serve our vicious self-interest, certainly prior to serving the interests of other persons, the Environment, other species, etc. The question is; Does bowing to the interests of Globalization serve individual self-interest?

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in