TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

Um...wow?

quote:

Port of Entry Frank Gaffney | February 13, 2006 How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan -- and be determined to prevent it from happening. Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001 . In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility. Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans -- to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract. This is not the first time this interagency panel -- called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review. Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however: 1) America 's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive. 2) Entrusting information about key U.S. ports -- including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so. 3) At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations -- or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets. 4) Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the Nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy. Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction? Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America. Or is it because the U.S. government views -- and is determined to portray -- the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad. Whatever the explanation, the Nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets -- including those that have a military or homeland security dimension -- determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight. Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.

>>Source<<

What the hell are you guys thinking down there??

Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Um...wow? >>Source<< What the hell are you guys thinking down there??

There goes the neighborhood!!!



In my neck of the woods:

quote:

The Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) at Seagirt Marine Terminal in the Port of Baltimore raises intermodalism to an art form. Only 100-feet from the bulkhead to the railhead insures that cargo arriving by ship speeds through the marine terminal to the rail yard, and on to the heartland of America. Seagirt is a terminal designed to move cargo as guickly as possible over the piers. Domesitc cargo is also processed through ICTF. Cargo leaving the ICTF in Baltimore can be in Chicago in 30 hours. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/julaug99/hwaygro.htm

quote:

The Port of Baltimore From an ideal inland location to a transportation network that flows into America's heartland, the Port of Baltimore combines all the necessary physical advantages�along with an experienced, skilled labor force and a committed, supportive private sector�to serve the world's needs. The Port of Baltimore is one of America's busiest international deepwater ports. Situated in the heart of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area�the fourth largest marketplace in the nation�the Port of Baltimore is the gateway between the nation and the international marketplace. The Port of Baltimore is closer to the Midwest than any other Atlantic seaport. It prides itself on being one of the safest and most secure ports in the world. The port is one of the leading ports of entry in the U.S. for foreign-made automobiles and for the export of Roll-on/Roll-off (RO/RO) cargoes overseas. Baltimore is one of America's leading RO/RO ports and offers specialized related services. The port also has extremely modern container facilities as well as special break bulk facilities for steel, pulp, paper, ore and coal. Baltimore is one of only two Eastern U.S. ports where the main shipping channel reaches a depth of 50 feet (15.2 meters). Five public and 12 private terminals handle the port's traffic. The port serves more than 70 ocean carriers whose vessels make nearly 2,300 annual port visits. The port is the second largest automobile importer in the nation, and the 13th largest container port in the country. Along the port's 45-mile long shoreline are multitudes of modern public and private cargo terminals that handle everything from bulk raw materials to finished goods. Other major characteristics of the port include a channel 50 feet deep and 800 feet wide. In addition, 23 million square feet of warehousing, nearly 12 million cubic feet of cold storage and 2.7 million bushels of grain storage are available. The Port of Baltimore serves as a magnet for intermodal cargo as the closest East Coast port to America's industrial center. CSX Intermodal and Norfolk Southern both maintain intermodal facilities that connect Baltimore with key U.S. markets. Every Port of Baltimore marine terminal is within one traffic light of an interchange connecting to I-95 and I-70, the north-south and east-west cargo throughways to the important Midwest and East Coast consumer markets. The port is also just a short distance from I-83 and an easy connection to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Within an overnight drive of Baltimore, businesses can connect with one-third of the nation's population and manufacturing base. http://www.choosemaryland.org/texto...tation/port.asp

Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=#33ccff]There goes the neighborhood!!!

Quite literally...

Xenophobic reaction, disghusting.

So when the British control the USA ports there is no problem whatsoever with it? But then when a different international company buys the British company, it is all of a sudden wrong??

Both the UK and the UAE are official allies of the USA. And Richard Reid was british! (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist) )

Its not like these ports were sold to North Korea, Iran, or *gasp* China. It was sold to a free-trade-totting, US-ally-abiding, Arab-oil-money-tauting UAE firm. Why is this any different then allowing Saudis to own skyskrappers in NYC??


Reality is, the security of these ports are still the job of a federal agency and not the port owner.

Congress didn't have a say about this, as the deal was a merger between a British company and a UAE company.

If the UAE company wouldn't have bought P&O, then it would have been a Singaporean firm, would it be ok for Singapore to opeate USA ports?

Also P&O owns many European and other international ports...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Xenophobic reaction, disghusting. So when the British control the USA ports there is no problem whatsoever with it? But then when a different international company buys the British company, it is all of a sudden wrong?? Both the UK and the UAE are official allies of the USA. And Richard Reid was british! (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(terrorist) ) Its not like these ports were sold to North Korea, Iran, or *gasp* China. It was sold to a free-trade-totting, US-ally-abiding, Arab-oil-money-tauting UAE firm. Why is this any different then allowing Saudis to own skyskrappers in NYC??

I said what I did jokingly - more for the effect than anything else I guess. Sure, I do agree with you to a certain degree, but I really think that we do need to actively step up the security at the ports. I definitely wouldn't trust the security to just anybody.

But perhaps everything will be okay - just as long as port security isn't in the hands of another Bush interest (as security was at the World Trade Centers in NYC up until the day of 9/11.)

quote:

TRIMMING THE BUSHES Family Business at the Watergate By Margie Burns | February 15, 2005 Not many, if any, news reports have focused on the unpublicized connections of this Bush administration's family members with politically and financially sensitive operations. Business Week recently noted that "dads and sons and other relatives reign so widely in this administration that there have never been so many family combos in an administration at the same time." And the British Economist has said that "George Bush's Washington is a study in family influence." But there are a small number of journalists with enough patience, energetic curiosity and research ability to dig for some of those untold details. One of them is our occasional contributor Margie Burns, a scholarly investigator with a Ph.D. who teaches English literature at the University of Maryland in Baltimore when she is not probing Internet sources for her next article. She has written for us on White House connections with Halliburton (September 15, 2003); the Bush family's profiteering in Iraq (February 1, 2004); and the right-wing Washington "neocons" who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq (May 1, 2004). For more than 20 years the Bush family has had extensive business ties to Middle East geopolitics. Among other connections, during the 1990s certain suites at the Watergate office building in Washington, rented by the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, were also home to a Bush-linked private investment firm. The investment company, called the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), backed and largely controlled a security company named Stratesec and an aircraft company named Aviation General. Both Stratesec and Aviation General convened their annual shareholders' meetings from 1999 through 2001 in Suite 900 at the Watergate, then rented by the Saudi embassy. Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush and a director of Stratesec, was reelected annually to his directorship there, near the Saudi Arabian Airlines offices. In 2002, the companies moved their shareholders meetings to the Watergate's Suite 500, held by the Kuwaiti embassy. Aviation General was founded in the early 1980s as Commander Aircraft. It manufactured and sold private planes to international clients. Stratesec was founded as Securacom (formerly the engineering firm Burns and Roe Securacom). It was reinvented shortly after the first Gulf War, and thereafter marketed large security contracts to big clients, including the World Trade Center, Washington's Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport, various municipalities and airlines. Stratesec and Aviation General shared top executives, including Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family," according to a former colleague, and Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah of the Kuwaiti ruling family. Walker and Al Sabah also headed KuwAm, the backer of Stratesec and Aviation General. TIGHT LINKS � The boards and shareholders of the three companies�the investment firm KuwAm, the security company Stratesec, and the aircraft company Aviation General�were tightly connected. Walker, a director at all three companies, was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec while at the same time managing director at KuwAm, including when Stratesec hired KuwAm for corporate secretarial services at $2,500 a month. Stratesec, which was de-listed on the American Stock Exchange in the fall of 2002 and went bankrupt, also paid Walker $130,500 annually for consulting, according to its quarterly filings. Both Stratesec and Aviation General are bankrupt now, and KuwAm has relocated its headquarters from the Watergate to Walker's home in McLean, Virginia, a Washington suburb. Mishal Al Sabah, son of the former Emir of Kuwait and ex-son-in-law of the current Emir, also served on the boards of both KuwAm and Stratesec and sometimes as chairman of KuwAm. Walker and Al Sabah were major shareholders in both companies. According to interviews Walker has given, their close relationship began when Al Sabah came to America at age 15. When Al Sabah turned 21, he invested in Walker's companies, including KuwAm, where another Al Sabah relative also served on the board. Investors in the bankrupt Stratesec are now suing the company's partners, including Walker and Al Sabah, in federal court in Washington. Al Sabah, under contempt-of-court charges, faces arrest if he returns to this country, according to an individual close to the case. He is thought to be in Kuwait, but recently traveled to the United Arab Emirates to conduct the sale of an airplane by Commander Aircraft, now a subsidiary of Aviation General, Walker's other company. KuwAm was by far the biggest long-term backer for both Stratesec and Aviation General, acting much like a swinging door for Kuwaiti money to pass through. In 1996, KuwAm owned 90 percent of Securacom, directly or through partnerships with names like "Special Situations Investment Holdings" and "Fifth Floor Company for General Trading and Contracting." KuwAm owned 31 percent of Securacom in 1998 and 47 percent of Stratesec in 1999. Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. The company described itself this way: "Stratesec, Incorporated, is a fully integrated single source security systems company. The company provides consulting and planning, engineering and design, systems integration, and maintenance and technical support services to commercial and government clients worldwide. Stratesec has completed security projects for airports, corporations, utilities, prisons, universities, and federal, state and local governments." When Securacom went public on September 11, 1997, its prospectus for the Initial Public Offering prominently featured photographs of its clients the World Trade Center and Dulles airport, with a client list that included United Airlines and Los Alamos National Laboratories. While on the board, Marvin Bush served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. He acquired 53,000 shares of stock in the company at 52 cents a share, partly through his private company, Andrews-Bush, located in northern Virginia. Shares in the 1997 initial offering sold at $8.50. Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold. Bush, whose investment firm still backs other contractors at the Dulles and Reagan airports, has not responded to requests for comment. One of Stratesec's biggest security contracts was with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, to provide electronic security for Dulles and Reagan airports. The company got its first preventive-maintenance contract with Dulles airport in 1995 and received about $6.3 million in revenue from the Dulles project between 1995 and 1998. Stratesec did not handle passenger screening at Dulles, where one of the 9/11 jets was hijacked. According to Dave Swennes, a contracting official for the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, its three-year contract was for maintenance of security systems. The company maintained the airfield access system, the closed circuit television system and electronic badging. Given the security sensitivities of Dulles airport, there are ironies in having some of its electronic security handled by a company with Middle East ties. After completing its three-year contract with Dulles, the company bid on a new contract but lost out in spite of being the lowest bidder. TIES TO THE TWIN TOWERS � Securacom, beginning with its previous incarnation, Stratesec, unlike many other security firms, did not separate security consulting from providing security services. As a single-source provider of end-to-end security services, it offered everything from a diagnosis of existing systems, to hiring subcontractors, and to installing video and electronic equipment. It also offered armored vehicles and security guards. The company emphasized continuing relationships with a few big long-term clients, including the World Trade Center, home to the Twin Towers. According to SEC filings, the World Trade Center and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, were two of the company's three biggest clients in 1996 and 1997. After the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began a multimillion-dollar, multiyear revamping of security in and around the Twin Towers. As Burns and Roe Securacom, the company had previously done security studies on the World Trade Center. Securacom was hired along with many other contractors for the upgrade and was praised in security industry publications, although the board membership of former President Bush's son Marvin went unnoticed. Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor. Aviation General boasted of its international clientele. A 1996 press release announced its sale of airplanes to the National Civil Aviation Training Organization (NCATO) of Giza, Egypt, "the sole civilian pilot training organization in Egypt." The announcement mentioned "Sheik Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah" as "Chairman of KuwAm Corporation and board member of Commander Aircraft Company." NCATO also had contractual partnerships with several U.S. flight schools, including Embry-Riddle University in Florida. Embry-Riddle has not responded to questions about the partnership. Aviation General was de-listed on the Nasdaq exchange in October 2002 after filing for bankruptcy protection. Although, Stratesec and Aviation General were both troubled companies, with blatant managerial problems including litigation, tax arrears, and trouble paying vendors, both companies received substantial funding throughout the 1990s. On top of the massive capital infusion from the Kuwaitis, millions were generated through its Initial Public Offering statement in 1997, and revenues from large contracts. Stratesec also obtained capital from numerous investors. Why was that, if the companies were so troubled? Former managers speculate that the Bush connection was helpful. A partial list of companies investing in Stratesec while Marvin Bush was on the board of directors includes several well-known investment management companies, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Munder, Fidelity, Putnam, and John Hancock. According to Jeff Gallup, a former Stratesec manager who left the company for a position at Landtek, Inc., Stratesec installed the initial security-description plan�the layout of the electronic security system�at the World Trade Center. Gallup knows the WTC site well, since Landtek, like EJ Electric, was a prime contractor at the trade center. He was "intimately involved" with WTC security, he said in a phone interview last year, up to September 12, 2001, when "the F.B.I. left my office with all the contents of the WTC visitors database," by then three-quarters of a million visitors' badges. It is regrettable that the F.B.I. has not been equipped with an adequate computer system to analyze this information. ENLARGING MARVIN�Among his other business interests, Marvin Bush also served on the board of directors of HCC Insurance (formerly Houston Casualty Company), one of the main insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Thus Bush, paradoxically, was connected to two companies with a significant interest in security at the trade center. In spring 1999, Bush was simultaneously a nominee for the boards of both Stratesec and HCC Insurance. Bush's directorship at Stratesec was not included on the proxy statement for HCC that year, and his connections with HCC were not included on the proxy statement for Stratesec. SEC regulations require directors and officers of public companies to list their other directorships and business connections. In addition to Bush's violations of the SEC regulations in these instances, his directorship at Fresh Del Monte, where he and a longtime friend who brought him into HCC were also on the Audit and Compensation committees, was also omitted in the Stratesec proxy filing. Bush's HCC proxy information did disclose his positions at his own firm, Andrews-Bush, and at Fresh Del Monte, but in addition to not disclosing his Stratesec connection, he omitted yet another association, with Kerrco, an oil company in Houston. Bush left Stratesec after 1999 but currently remains an adviser to HCC Insurance. HCC lost $29 million at 9/11, largely from World Trade Center property losses, medical payouts in New York City, and workers' compensation reinsurance losses. The chairman and CEO of HCC Insurance, Stephen Way, brought Bush onto the boards of both HCC and Del Monte. L. Byron Way, HCC vice president, explained in a telephone interview that HCC "handled easily maybe a dozen or so coverages for the World Trade Center," mainly property and workers' compensation, going back through the 1990s. Way could not say when HCC became a carrier for the center or how much its WTC exposure totaled. "With stakes that big, premiums can vary," he said, adding that property coverage was handled through the London office. The company has not responded to questions about Bush's proxy statements. The security industry is an extraordinary combination of hush-hush secrecy and wild openness. When you hire a security contractor, one specialist said, "What's on your computer is on their computer." This is particularly a concern when the contractor services both government and private clients, or both domestic and foreign customers, as Marvin Bush's companies did. Why has the White House been so silent on this concern, particularly when enormous federal contracts have been involved? http://www.washingtonspectator.com/...215bushes_1.cfm

Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Um...wow? what the hell are you guys thinking down there??

P&O are one of the biggest names in shipping these days, they own ports from far east, europe and north america

what just because they from the middle east
hahhahahaha...ur politics are quite subjective to whats good for the WASP

i bet ull be the first defending an american aquisition of a foregin company

another one for u to get piss scared about, another uae company is about to buy fairmount hotels in canada!
ooooooooo scary the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming

Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by tamk P&O are one of the biggest names in shipping these days, they own ports from far east, europe and north america what just because they from the middle east hahhahahaha...ur politics are quite subjective to whats good for the WASP i bet ull be the first defending an american aquisition of a foregin company another one for u to get piss scared about, another uae company is about to buy fairmount hotels in canada! ooooooooo scary the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming

I think you're missing the point.
It's not about the 'scary Muslims' as much as it is a foreign entity, period.
We have as many laws regarding foreign investment and ownership here in Canada if not more so.
It's more about coughing up sovereignty and basing the security of their country in foreign hands.
The States, in particular, are very touchy with their security (for good reason) and that was obviously reflected when their government took over security of their airports after 9/11.
So what makes their ports any different??

Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I think you're missing the point. It's not about the 'scary Muslims' as much as it is a foreign entity, period. We have as many laws regarding foreign investment and ownership here in Canada if not more so. It's more about coughing up sovereignty and basing the security of their country in foreign hands. The States, in particular, are very touchy with their security (for good reason) and that was obviously reflected when their government took over security of their airports after 9/11. So what makes their ports any different??

i'm not so sure u would react the same way if a norweigian, dutch or british company took control of that port.

plus i doubt you'd apply the same reasoning to the prevailance of american OGE firms in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.

Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by tamk i'm not so sure u would react the same way if a norweigian, dutch or british company took control of that port.

I would be warey of any foreign entity totally controlling all my major shipping ports, that's just being responsible to one's country.
Foreign investment is one thing, total foreign ownership, especially in the realm of border security and immigration, is quite another.
I'm not against foreign ownership but the sensitivity of this particular situation would definately bring up a red flag and it has.

quote:

plus i doubt you'd apply the same reasoning to the prevailance of american OGE firms in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.

Given the present day circumstances and history of those particular countries, no.
If those particular countries weren't so difficult to deal with, I would probably change my mind.
How many of those listed countries have had problems with terrorist attacks? They are (or at least were) quite on the other side of that coin unfortunately, making them suspect when they reach out to invest in a 'target' country.
It'll take time but eventually, when the world trusts them again, they're be able to invest without getting a side glance and a raised eyebrow from the host country.
Unless you're Canada; we've just been whoring ourselves to the Chinese as of late...

Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by tamk i'm not so sure u would react the same way if a norweigian, dutch or british company took control of that port.

You're right, me being fairly Left of center and against the bulk of Bush's policies, I wouldn't react this way either to a norweigian, dutch, or british company that took control of 6 of our countries' major ports. But then again, those countries don't have the following record either:

quote:

# The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. # The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia. # According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system. # After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...orts_letter.pdf

So I believe we can drop the wannabe calls at racism and prejudice and realize that it simply isn't in our countries' best interest to have a business like this in charge of 6 of our major ports anyway.

Now there's other concerns I have that are directly tied to Bush and Homeland Security. Currently we only check about 5% of imported crates coming in our ports. That's just fucking pathetic on a massive scale, and a sincere lack of securing our borders in any way. And it is true that the Coast Guard and Homeland Security will continue to perform national security on these ports. That aspect has never left their hands.

Nevertheless, knowing what we know about this state-controlled UAE business, having them have so much control of our ports, given our sincere lack of security measures, doesn't make me feel that swell either.

quote:

plus i doubt you'd apply the same reasoning to the prevailance of american OGE firms in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.

Irrelevant. If those countries have allowed us access and ownership of their ports, then what those countries do or don't do about it is immaterial to our actions or inactions to securing our own borders from terrorist-sponsored countries and terrorist-sponsored government-owned corporate entities. Not that I don't entirely disagree with your last point, but that has nothing to do with our own borders. If those aforementioned countries have a problem with U.S. ports, then they can take appropriate action and kick us out if they so desire, esp. if they are incensed by our actions of wanting to protect ourselves from countries that have a rap sheet like the one I listed above.

this is where its at.

quote:

2) Entrusting information about key U.S. ports -- including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Reality is, the security of these ports are still the job of a federal agency and not the port owner.

That's the real issue as far as I'm concerned. Security. And as long as we're the one's securing "our" ports I don't see what the HUGE deal is.

I can only see this as a "bad" thing being that it's just another crippling factor on our dependance on petrolium in general.

I want a cold-fusion powered car damnit!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You're right, me being fairly Left of center and against the bulk of Bush's policies, I wouldn't react this way either to a norweigian, dutch, or british company that took control of 6 of our countries' major ports. But then again, those countries don't have the following record either:

Et tu Opus?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So I believe we can drop the wannabe calls at racism and prejudice and realize that it simply isn't in our countries' best interest to have a business like this in charge of 6 of our major ports anyway.

i don't think many Arab Americans would agree with you.

for you to imply that this country (UAE), is not much better than Saudi Arabia is problematic regarding an image that i think needs to be addressed in the Arab world.

i'm not saying you are, but i think democrats are caught in a strange place here criticizing this.

it makes for great politics thats for damn sure.

There is a rift happening between Bush and other Republicans!

The Republican party is in big trouble over this issue!

Bush might become an albatross! Personally, I find his decision to hand the ports over to UAE also to be very ill-judged and unfavorable! I will shortly post a separate aricle about UAE.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Et tu Opus?

When it comes to securing our borders, hell yeah. I think you'll find me to be one of the biggest hawks in protecting our country, something that it seems Bush has continually overlooked with blatant disregard.

This is one of the biggest bipartisan issues I've seen for some time, and rightfully so. There is no politics involved here - it's pretty simple, cut and dry. Here's Frist offering a bill to halt the deal:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1645547

So what does your fearless GOP leader do? Why he tells Congress to "fuck off", YET AGAIN:

quote:

President Bush said Tuesday that a deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it. The Senate's Republican leader had promised just such an effort a few hours earlier. "After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'" http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...-02-21-16-18-30

So what exactly was this "careful review"? Well let's ask Scotty boy:

quote:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, my understanding, Les, is that this went through the national security review process under CFIUS, at the Department of Treasury. That is the agency that is responsible for overseeing such matters. And this includes a number of national security agencies -- the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Justice, among others, and there is a rigorous review that goes on for proposed foreign investments for national security concerns. And in terms of specifics relating to this, Treasury is the chair of this and you should direct those questions to Treasury. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...060216-1.html#m

Dept. of Defense? Really, Scotty? Must be news to Rummy:

quote:

QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security � from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company? RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/21...-not-consulted/

Now you see, that's pretty interesting, especially when you consider the following by ThinkProgress:

quote:

Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn�t even find out about the sale until last weekend?

Hmmm, indeed.

So don't you find it a tad bit interesting that Bush, the president who's never seen a bill he didn't like and has never vetoed not one fucking thing across his desk, is risking to veto this bipartisan issue raised by many, many prominent hard-line Republicans?

There's a few things I can think of here:

1. My Lefty part of me says to the bottom of my heart, "THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!" This is truly the gift that's gonna keep on giving provided that he doesn't change course.

You combine this little bitch along with Katrina, Abramoff, Plamegate and Cheney's full disclosure of classified material to Libby, and the domestic spying issue, Bush is practically begging for a change in power in the Legislature. And it also brings attention to Bush's complete and utter inability to secure our borders and ports (5 fucking percent being checked, are you fucking kidding me?) I will not be able to thank him enough at this rate.

Rove wants to make National Security THE 2006 elections issue? Damn, what a gift.

2. Hi Congress, welcome to earth! What's wrong, you having problems getting your dumbshit leader to listen to you?

Well hey, how about that? Maybe, just maybe he never really gave a flying fucking shit about you in the first place? If this issue doesn't personify Bush's fucking disconnect with Congress, I don't know what will. But knowing the GOP and RNC, they'll likely cave in sooner or later, lest they want to be run out of Congress by their own party.

3. How fucking stupid can you get here Bush? Jesus, even Faux News is going ape shit with this one. Are you drinking again or something? I've noticed your jaw has been moving more frequently lately - got the sniffles? What the fuck is with you, buddy?

4. Did I mention how big of a fucking gift this little bitch is to the Democrats? Okay, good. Now, what the hell are the Democrats gonna do with it? I'll fucking become pregnant if they actually use this to their advantage, which of course the chances aren't too good for either.....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i don't think many Arab Americans would agree with you. for you to imply that this country (UAE), is not much better than Saudi Arabia is problematic regarding an image that i think needs to be addressed in the Arab world.

Hmm, I'm not sure where I ever implied such a thing. But now that you mention Saudi Arabia, I'm game to discussing Bush being a little bitch to this country, the one that harbored 15 out of 19 hijackers if you are.

quote:

i'm not saying you are, but i think democrats are caught in a strange place here criticizing this. it makes for great politics thats for damn sure.

What do the Democrats have to do with Bush holding hands with the fucking Saudi Royal family, and all his family ties to the businesses of the Sauds?

I don't know if I speak for the Democrats or not. Strangely, I've heard much more criticism from Republicans on this issue. I've heard some Democrats argue about it, but it seems many are watching the GOP eat it's own, once again. I'd be hard pressed, however, to see any Democrat being in favor of Bush's actions, though - do you?

From my perspective, this is bad both for political and for National Security purposes. If this somehow becomes unfavorable to other Arab countries, so be it, but I have my doubts it would really go that far. I dunno, like you said it is interesting politics. But I don't want to fucking hand over ports of my country to a state-sponsored, government-run company that had so many ties to our #1 enemy right now, do you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would be warey of any foreign entity totally controlling all my major shipping ports, that's just being responsible to one's country. Foreign investment is one thing, total foreign ownership, especially in the realm of border security and immigration, is quite another. I'm not against foreign ownership but the sensitivity of this particular situation would definately bring up a red flag and it has.

thats odd these ports were managed by a forign company in any case, but this compnay happend to be Brtish.

now this british company is being bought by one from Dubai.

so the issue isnt soverginity, stop talking shit, its because a company form the middle east has bought a british company that was managing these ports.

therefore...ooooo scary muslims

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Given the present day circumstances and history of those particular countries, no. If those particular countries weren't so difficult to deal with, I would probably change my mind. How many of those listed countries have had problems with terrorist attacks? They are (or at least were) quite on the other side of that coin unfortunately, making them suspect when they reach out to invest in a 'target' country. It'll take time but eventually, when the world trusts them again, they're be able to invest without getting a side glance and a raised eyebrow from the host country. Unless you're Canada; we've just been whoring ourselves to the Chinese as of late...

- well coming from your point of veiw you should totally understand anti-americanism...and why people hate kfc (amogst other american symbols) all over the world...
- which other country causes as much bullshit all over the world than the US...and according to your reasoning this anti-american rationalsim is more than valid
- plus without this chineese whoring Canada would be not be doing as well, economically speaking...the immigrants and buisnessmen bring in a lot of money that dirversifies canadian economic interests away from the US.
- WASP power!

another thing...i really don't have problem with WASPyness...
if only you would disclose your subjectivity rather than protraying your opinions as without bias
it would be easier discussing things knowing where youre coming from

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmm, I'm not sure where I ever implied such a thing. But now that you mention Saudi Arabia, I'm game to discussing Bush being a little bitch to this country, the one that harbored 15 out of 19 hijackers if you are.

yeah, you did. the list you gave for UAE detractions could have been applied to any number of Arab allies that we have successfully and safely worked with for decades. but thats neither here nor there.

president Bush is a Saudi "Bitch" as much as any other American president in history. what a frikken sophomoric statement that is. really. sounds like you wanted that airbase in Rhyad to stay there

quote:

I'd be hard pressed, however, to see any Democrat being in favor of Bush's actions, though - do you?

i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration.

quote:

From my perspective, this is bad both for political and for National Security purposes. If this somehow becomes unfavorable to other Arab countries, so be it, but I have my doubts it would really go that far. I dunno, like you said it is interesting politics. But I don't want to fucking hand over ports of my country to a state-sponsored, government-run company that had so many ties to our #1 enemy right now, do you?

so much for being a uniter, huh?
no. i don't have a proplem with it just because i know it's much more complicated and involved than what you say.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah, you did. the list you gave for UAE detractions could have been applied to any number of Arab allies that we have successfully and safely worked with for decades. but thats neither here nor there.

Actually, that is both here and there. If such a list could be applied to other Arab countries, then it is up to this Administration to shut the fuck up and put its money to where it's mouth is. Remember this?:

"You're either with us or against us".

So if there are other government-sponsored terrorist countries, esp. like Al Qaeda, then perhaps we should be doing a little more than giving stupid fucking lip service political statements that go nowhere in reality?

And I thought you GOPers were supposedly tough on terrorism?

And while we're at it, let's take yet another gander at this lovely country that runs the corporation responsible for running 6 of our major ports. From 18 months ago:

quote:

Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack. The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

Doesn't that just make you feel so swell inside? What a great place to be in charge of entrance into 6 of our major cities!

quote:

president Bush is a Saudi "Bitch" as much as any other American president in history. what a frikken sophomoric statement that is.

Oh really? Shall we dive into the politics of the Bush family and their deep and direct connections to the Saudi Royal family as well as their connections to oil? Could you be so kind as to point out those same connections to the Clintons? I'd be very interested.

quote:

really. sounds like you wanted that airbase in Rhyad to stay there

Why would I care? And how is that relevant to protecting our own borders in an appropriate manner?

quote:

i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration.

Similarly, I'd be hard pressed to find Bush apologists such as yourself EVER get your nose out of this President's ass at any given point in time. I'd also be hard pressed to find Bush supporters such as yourself actually raise a descent argument without any character assassination and ad hominems.

But let's see here, given the fact that you have clearly vocal hard line GOPers like the governor of Maryland, New York, and Bill Frist go directly against Bush on this, I guess we'll be categorizing them in the same dipshit generalization that you just made about the Democrats now, won't we?

quote:

so much for being a uniter, huh?

A uniter with a government-sponsored country with ties to Al Qaeda?

Well gee, how silly of me to think we actually have to address those individuals who support the fucking bastards who actually attacked us! How ungracious of me to feel it necessary to be so cautious in extending my hand to such individuals.

I guess I just keep thinking that Saddam attacked us, and that this whole darn Al Qaeda thingy wasn't such a big deal afterall. I mean, who cares if bin Laden is still running free, and that now that place we attacked (Iraq) is the biggest al Qaeda terrorist breeding ground!

I mean, we got Saddam, right?

It sure is fun thinking like a Bush apologist! I love this memory hole!

quote:

no. i don't have a proplem with it just because i know it's much more complicated and involved than what you say.

Well now's your chance to explain yourself. And be sure to explain how your leaders like Bill Frist, the Maryland and New York Governor are so wrong with their assessment as well.



So everything just has to be a fucking bullshit attack with you, doesn't it? Even on this point which is clearly a bipartisan issue you just have no room for anyone else's thought but Bush's, do you? And don't you just get tired of lashing out at everything against Bush's stance on things? Surely there's a few issues you have with him, don't you? You can't possibly be up his ass on everything, can you? I honestly had a slight amount of room of doubt that this is how you would behave on every occasion. Unfortunate, and now's it's no longer surprising.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by tamk - well coming from your point of veiw you should totally understand anti-americanism...and why people hate kfc (amogst other american symbols) all over the world...

First, lets get a few things straight (at least for your sake) since you're obviously new here...

a) I'm not an anti-American socialist Canadian, quite the opposite. I don't identify with the Canadian knee-jerked reaction of defining myself as being Canadian by being "anti-American".
b) I believe in the theories of capitalism and democracy more than any other systems.
c) I have more immigrant friends than anything else; I find they (normally) have a better view of the world depending on how well travelled they are.

I don't know why I necessarily need to explain myself to you just to have an opinion on a situation that obviously needs to be addressed, regardless of the country.
I would have made the same comments and opinion had the ports been in Canada. What if Canada was to sell their major Western ports to a major Chinese corporation?? You don't think there wouldn't be a backlash from that??

quote:

- which other country causes as much bullshit all over the world than the US...and according to your reasoning this anti-american rationalsim is more than valid

Against, you're mistaken. See above.

quote:

- plus without this chineese whoring Canada would be not be doing as well, economically speaking...the immigrants and buisnessmen bring in a lot of money that dirversifies canadian economic interests away from the US.

I agree that our dependance on the States is too much and in these days of the 'global economy', diversification is just a good idea.
However, the caveat is whom you deal with.
Let's not forget China is still a communist country and while it's almost a necessity to deal with them with the amount of cash they're throwing at everything, they still have an atrocious human rights record. We should not be rewarding them for that...
This is getting off topic however, I merely mentioned China to prove a point regarding foriegn ownership.

quote:

- WASP power!

Dood...I'm not even WASP so this is totally irrelavant and rather ignorant actually...

I think you're missing the big picture here.
UAE is not the U.K.
The U.K. is not a question when it comes to foreign ownership because they're proved themselves in the past to be allies of the host nation.
The UAE is not necessarly known for such staunch support in any global situation other than the liberation of Kuwait.
I will admit that the UAE is probably the warmest of the Middle Eastern countries to deal with when you take into account their history with the Britsh (the UAE was a protectorate of the British until 1971) however, we're talking about a major, major deal.
There have been no assurances or reports to the public regarding the deal.

quote:

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it. "After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

>>Source<<

I understand what he's trying to do but he simply hasn't made the right reassurances and that my friend is why the red flags are going up...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 "You're either with us or against us".

so which is it? is it "here and the there" or is it "lip service based on non-reality" i don't think it's either. i don't think it's relevant to this discussion. the only "reality" it marginalizes is a global relationship with trusted partners economically and diplomatically if used in the wrong context like you are doing.

quote:

And I thought you GOPers were supposedly tough on terrorism?

i think all Americans should be tough on terrorism. why Dems aren't i have no idea. i don't see this as a partisaned issue, although the politics of it interests me. i realize that it's just part of it but it's just so easy to take a tough stand on terrorism in an election year on both sides of the aisle.

quote:

And while we're at it, let's take yet another gander at this lovely country that runs the corporation responsible for running 6 of our major ports. From 18 months ago. Doesn't that just make you feel so swell inside? What a great place to be in charge of entrance into 6 of our major cities!

sure. they did a lot of their training in Germany and Great Britain and here, recieved money from there. used an ATM here, stayed at this dude's house, had some beers in New Jersey. so the fuck what?

quote:

Oh really? Shall we dive into the politics of the Bush family and their deep and direct connections to the Saudi Royal family as well as their connections to oil? Could you be so kind as to point out those same connections to the Clintons? I'd be very interested.

i'm not going to go off the moonbat end with you about this cause it's not even tangent to the subject. suffice it to say that as president, he has been no different thatn any other.

quote:

Why would I care? And how is that relevant to protecting our own borders in an appropriate manner?

really? then let me ask you this. what do you think the implications would have been if we didn't pull our forces off the Saudi peninsula? you can call him a "bitch" for doing so but how stupid would that be seeing how you're so righteous about defending our homeland.

quote:

Similarly, I'd be hard pressed to find Bush apologists such as yourself EVER get your nose out of this President's ass at any given point in time. I'd also be hard pressed to find Bush supporters such as yourself actually raise a descent argument without any character assassination and ad hominems.

more insults huh? where are we? DemocraticUnderground.com, the frikken DailyKos? can't a man think logically...with an open mind about this. take into account all things on a global scale without all the xenophobia?
fukkin moonbats dude

quote:

But let's see here, given the fact that you have clearly vocal hard line GOPers like the governor of Maryland, New York, and Bill Frist go directly against Bush on this, I guess we'll be categorizing them in the same dipshit generalization that you just made about the Democrats now, won't we?

no. the only "dipshit generalization" was my comment about you saying we shouldn't have a country like this running our ports and how many Arab Americans see it differently, which after a comment like that, i still stand by.

what is your opinion of Singapore?

quote:

So everything just has to be a fucking bullshit attack with you, doesn't it?

again, when did i ever attack you about this?

like i said i understand where youre coming from
but earlier you claimed to express reservations against ANY foriegn entity controlling ports which you considered an affront to soverignity.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would be warey of any foreign entity totally controlling all my major shipping ports, that's just being responsible to one's country.

- however the port was already controlled by foregin entity but it was from the UK and its now being bought.
- so i was clearing that point up its the fact that the port will be controlled by a middle eastern company that bothers you.

am i right?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.