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.


Dubai Company Still Controlling 22 American Ports...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:25 PM

Dubai Company Still Controlling 22 American Ports...

DOBBS:...It's been more than three months since Dubai Ports World agreed to sell its port operations at 22 U.S. ports. But as of today, all 22 of these terminal facilities remained under the control of Dubai Ports and the government of Dubai. You thought we weren't watching, didn't you? Bill Tucker reports


JOE MULDOON, FULLER & COMPANY: Since March 6th, Dubai Ports World has owned and controlled operations in 22 U.S. ports and that Congress now has dropped the provision that would prohibit their approvals....

...TUCKER: The reference to Congress has to do with the House and Senate stripping out language, put in by the House, that specifically forbid DP World from owning or controlling operations in our ports. With the removal of that language, it's not clear if DPW even legally is bound to sell the properties. The announced agreement by Dubai Ports World to sell was voluntary...

...DOBBS: So at this point, now it's just about four months since this agreement was reached, Congress has backed away from its language. Dubai Ports World has not acted. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, has said that it reserves the right to make Dubai Ports World do what it said it would do publicly. So you're not suggesting, are you, Mr. Tucker, in your reporting here, well, let me rephrase that. Is it a reasonable inference that the American public, the American citizens are being gamed again by this administration and this Congress?...


No, apparently very few were watching...

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:40 PM
For those of you who hadn't heard about the foreign ownership of some of the US ports, see these links from earlier this year:

Seems like we have forgotten about this whole situation, what a short attention span :shk:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Seems like we have forgotten about this whole situation, what a short attention span :shk:

Indeed, which I believe has become the new political reality. When you consider the Gaubatz thread in light of this, makes you wonder why the most outrageous political theories are so outrageous....

Makes it easy to pretty much get away with anything, as long as you outlive the attention span of the American public.

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:26 PM
look, they own alot of ports worldwide. they do not want to dominate the earth and ship over big weapons to kill everyone. they are a business. its not as big of a deal as some would love for you to think, thats one of the reasons people are not still talking about it.

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:37 PM

I don't actually disagree with most of what you said. However, there are other reasons to oppose the deal. Moreover, what I do disagree with is:

Originally posted by acura_el2000
...thats one of the reasons people are not still talking about it.

I can't help but wonder if it is apathy caused by a sense of futility...

[edit on 21-6-2006 by loam]

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:08 PM
I’m still very much in the air on this one. I’ve never been sure whether this was a bad thing to begin with. Seems to me after cooperating with us they got a stick in the eye in return. Can’t make friends that way can we. It sure won’t help in getting assistance from others. I think the lack of interest may have come because many realized that the initial opposition was unfounded and politically motivated and possibly not in our best interest.

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:31 AM
acura, your correct.
But, just because the OWNER of the business, the directors feels its a proper investment, and by NO WAY mean to harm anyone.

It just makes it ALL THE MORE possible that someone WITHIN the ports, IE a truck driver, forklift operator or what ever,
become sympathetic to who's ever cause.. and puts a container on a ship that wasnt meant to be thre, that no one knows about, and more worrying, no one knwos the contents, accept for the people that paid you to put it on there and ignore it.

Giving control of our ports to a middleastern country just means theres a hightend risk someone could do something.

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:06 AM
even if you don't see any problem with the deal, the idea that the government seems to have said one thing and then commenced doing the opposite....AGAIN....should bother you.

my biggest question is this...

does dubia now have control over what is and isn't shipped into the ports it controls? I mean, if it decided that it didn't want, let's computer components from china coming into their ports, could they refuse them from docking and unloading there?

I know that if such a thing were to take place, we'd have dubia replaced rather quickly...but well, certain computer parts might just become a little scarce in the meantime....
and well, consider just what would happen if they decided to block something a little more important, like oil from coming in....

with all the ruckus over this, and all the talk about what they wouldn't be doing, I really didn't hear too much about what they would be doing, what their responsibilities involved, and just what kind of power this deal gave them. Although, I did hear that they would be given details as far as our security goes..... If this deal was really as innocent as they claimed it was, they would have been better off trying to calm the public down a little by explaining in more detail just what their responsibilities and powers were instead of lying to us again.

hmmm...wonder what the NY Port Authoritity is up to??

top topics


log in