The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
Some facts about the UAE:
– 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.
A bipartisan group of seven members of Congress is calling on the Treasury Department to suspend their approval until they investigate the national security implications of the sale. Such an investigation is required by federal law but hasn’t yet been conducted. You can read their letter here.
great… give control over our ports to Muslim countries… why don’t we have Saudi Arabia run Homeland Security?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 amC’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Yea, this sounds like a great idea.
How about we also put some nuclear material up for sale on Ebay, too? Gotta pay for those giveaways to Big Oil somehow.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:14 amThe Bush administration has stronger allegiance to the global elite than to the American public. Unfortunately, this select club of wealthy individuals contains one important and disgraced member: Osama bin Laden. The further empowerment of this club weakens our security and our national economic interests.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:16 amI really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:19 amThese people are coming from a very dark place and have a death wish that they have so thoughtfully included us all in.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:21 amCould you be alittle less cryptic, Jesus H?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:23 amUnreal, anyone who thinks this is a good idea has their head up their @ss. If you think it is hysteria to think there is inherent danger in this decision then I sure you wouldn’t object to having an Iranian company supply the town/city that you are from with the food you eat.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am#6 –
That move really bugs me. I’m in Columubus, OH and was all geared up to volunteer for Hackett’s campaign.
Schumer is guilty of typical GOP behavior of only letting people in the right club play on the big political stage. I just don’t thin Brown is going to get the same following that Hackett would have.
Although, maybe Rush would like to volunteer for Brown. He’s so tight with Brown that he was aware of something that even Brown himself didn’t know – Sherrod Brown is African American (only he’s not: Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race)
February 17th, 2006 at 9:25 amI think this demonstrates who’s really calling the shots, and it ain’t Dick Cheney.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:26 amDoesn’t D. Cheney own “Newquewler Parts Are Us” on an island 90 miles off our coast?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amThis one has me baffled. What is the admin. thinking?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amWhy would we outsource the management of American ports? Haven’t we all heard how vulnerable they are even years after 9/11? And the choice is to outsource to the UAE! Of all bodies to control the ports – this decision is beyond the pale.
Just who has Bush’s allegiance? The close association between the Bush family and the Princes of Arabia, the questions that continue to bubble beneath the surface concerning 9/11, the turning over the search for OBL to the Afghans — what is happening before our eyes? This is not even partisan any more — both parties should be demanding answers.
NO
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amOn its face it does not make any sense at all. There has to be a back story. Who has been bribed? Is it a way to bust unions? Is the idea that when the ports are used to smuggle in some devasting weapon that is used against the United States Bush figures he will get more mileage out rekindling American fears than the possible fallout from the fact that his administration made it possible? I mean that has worked before and I do not give Dumbya any points for creativity. I agree with Authoritarian Rush, however, that other than showing extremely poor judgment, there is not enough at present to make much of a case.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amUp next; outsourcing the FAA to Hamas.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am#3, Authoritarian Rush – you’re right. Bush would not “blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America”, rather, he would deliberately do it.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:31 amHey Terry and Rush, why don’t we just oursource our airports to the muslims as well? Why stop there….. Why not all of our transportation systems. Hell we can outsource our government to them as well, oh wait we already do that.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:32 amI got it!
By giving the UAE control over the ports, it’ll be that much easier to figure out how the nuclear bomb/nerve gas/other terrorist device got into the country and was used in the next big attack.
You see, the administration is just trying to save time for the investigators who have to figure out what happened.
He’s just trying to give everyone some R&R time so they can play guitar and eat cake.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:33 amIt’s now official, our federal government aids terrorist attacks on their own people.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 amThey are now begging for an unprecedented attack. You think 9-11 was big? Just wait. Look for simultaneous attacks in three or four cities.
They sacrificed 3000 innocents to get their Iraq war.
Next up . . . . Martial Law.
an unrelated note, but I think you will like this story.
http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/02/17/328192.html&cvqh=itn&ts=2006.02.17_07.05
don’t know what to say about this outsourcing. I don’t think we should put our countries enemies in charge of our ports, but that is just me.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 am# 6, Authoritarian Rush – “I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.” So we should mimic Bush’s handling of 9/11 and just not care about possible threats now? Why is it that you are so gung-ho about doing EVERYTHING possible to keep illegal immigrants out, and you’re willing to do everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks… but as soon as Bush makes (yet another) mistake in a way that aids possibly terrorists, you defend it like it’s nothing?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:35 amThe UAE underbid Osama, they won the contract fair and simple.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:38 amProgs and Dems tried and failed to paint Murdoch selling Fox to a Saudi as a threat to national seciruty or some other bizarre occurance. Fact is, after the Democratic failures to change public opinion about this administration all they really have is slander and heresay. Do the report. Then follow up. But this story is already dead. Ho hum.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:39 amHey Rush, theres a big difference between selling a tv station and a port. GET A CLUE!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:42 am#23 –
The reason is some type of sick blind trust that conservatives seem to have for Bush and the administration. It’s as though he/they can do no wrong.
That to me is a key difference between conservatives and everyone else.
Conservatives blindly accept any action of their ‘leaders’ and repeat whatever justification they are told by them for said action.
Everyone else thinks for themselves, questions the motivations/reasons behind an action, and critically looks at the rationale given by the leaders.
Wake up, right. Giving the GOP carte blanche is dangerous. And stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:43 amCan anyone cite one thing that the shrub ever did for the good of the amurkan people? He has his reasons for doing this, I can only guess at a few of them.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 amHey Rush – We don’t have to try and change public opinion, he has done that for us.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 am#24, WtM
February 17th, 2006 at 9:46 amI appreciate your sarcasm, but BushCo doesn’t award contracts through a bidding process – it’s always a reward for something past or a bribe for something future.
Don’t forget that two of the hijackers were UAE
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amas well.
23
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amYou’re wrong. You’ve been on this site for this long and you still haven’t gotten the message about he who controls the message?
UAE is an American ally.
How those tiny little gears turn in those puny little brains Rust,just amazing!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amThe company will operate machinery?Moving containers?Oil transfers?Disenfranchising the longshoresmen?Will they carry the insurance premiums?Is this an improvement over the current opperation?How much government money is involved?I don’t think they mean to hire their employees from the UAE so this would not be outsourcing jobs from American workers,just union busting.Those are high risk,high paying jobs so I expect that those who have them will be looking at pay cuts or lockouts.Sick puppies all of them.Greed and kickbacks.Another money laundering scheme.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:52 amFace it. Our country has been put on the auction block to the highest bidder. Bush sold himself out to the Saudi’s long ago in his early energy dealings. His buddy, “Bandar Bush” has had him in his pocket for years. Now the UAE get the ports as payback for political and most importantly cash reasons.
Remember, as one highly placed Bushista stated,”We’re an empire now, we create our own reality”
Besides, if there is another terrorist attach, Bush will have an chance to stand atop that mound of smouldering rubble and shout through his bull horn another bumper sticker slogan.
As long as he can keep America shaking in fear, he wil have absolute power. It worked for a crazy German painter, and it’s working for a failed fake Texan.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:53 amWell, we deal with the Al-Qualude trifecta daily don’t we. Wasn’t UAE , along with pakistan and saudi Arabia one of the biggest supporters in the late 90’s? Didn’t M. atta & another hijacker or 2 wire money back and forth to the UAE. .money .UAE was a big player in the financing of 911.i think even one of the hijackers was from UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amPublic opinion as it is now is not going to correct the problems. Only hearings. Dems can’t force hearings without overwhelming public support.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amWhen I get home at the end of the day, and turn on my TV, the very first thing I should see is a PSA about how deviant and contrary this government is. Cheney is running this country, and we don’t know anything about him. When Schumer does crap like this all he is really doing is playing the Terror/Hysteria card in the same fashion Bush does.
#37, read #32 for your answer: 2 were UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:57 amRush,
February 17th, 2006 at 9:58 amI don’t know anyone that thought that FOX having Saudi ties is a threat to national security…I think most people think it just shows how hypocrtical the people making the news at FOX are and how ignorant the people who follow the teachings of Murdoch are.
39
The prevailing message was not the appearance of hypocrisy but rather the power of the Prince to affect bias.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:02 amThe same company was bidding in the UK recently – the problem was price, not security. Another bidder got involved.
The company is more concerned with investing the current windfall oil receipts and getting a good return for the time when their oil stops flowing (alot of the members of the UAE are running out).
Of course it is a ‘concern’ but the same could be said about Citgo and Chavez’s threat to shut down his US refineries.
The problem is that it’s on US soil and the US is pefectly capable of nationalizing it/forcing operations to continue.
That said, the decision to buy the ports is a bad one. This company has a history of overpaying for assets that yield a steady cashflow (which is why they are popular – they’re bondlike in character because the returns are fairly stable).
UAE has differing levels of ‘modernity’ among the members that constitute it. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are very modern and very attractive to Westerners. Some of the others are ‘backward’.
That said, they’ve got one of the largest Formula One race tracks and the jockeys on their camels are now robotic. (they realized that with Westerners buying up all the property on their fake Palm Islands that child jockeys didn’t fit).
Dubai also is becoming a pretty big financial center.
This has been cleared by those lovely folks from Congress that look at this crap – remember they shot down the Chinese bid for ‘76′/Myranmar tyran oil company?:)
The lack of other bidders suggests that they are overpaying, probably by alot. Their forecast depends on the US influx of goods staying about at current levels or increasing – which can only happen if foreigners are willing to continue to finance our dissaving.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am#37 –
Pointing out that the administration is outsourcing American ports to the UAE (who has REAL links to terrorists, not the made-up ones to Iraq) is playing the Terror/Hysteria card?
Ummmm… no. It’s trying to be proactive and prevent a problem BEFORE it happens. It’s what progressives do. Try to anticipate a problem and deal with it ahead of time.
You conservatives should try that for a change instead of invading countries and then all staring at each other saying, “Now what?”
(I was going to use the analogy of “Shoot first, ask questions later” but with the whole Cheney thing, it would have been more like “Shoot first, don’t answer questions at all.”)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:05 ama.rush has the troll morning shift. this fools ‘goose step’ is showing. he thought this was ‘I love bush.com’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am“Dubai Ports World” is a fairly new but has WESTERN management, for the most part. Dubai likes foreigners to run their financial operations – Dubai is trying to become a financial center for the mideast.
Dubai is part of the UAE, but it makes its own decisions. It’s the most ‘progressive’ area in the Muslim world – everyone seems to be wanting to live in their filled in Palm Island (which are quite cool) – and those people include americans/britains/etc.
This is a commercial transaction that has to be approved by the politicians. Dubai is concerned because in a few years they have no more oil and that is bad. That’s why they’re trying to transform themselves.
They are, however, going for assets that are good for the cashflow – but they are overpaying. Luckily in the UK their port bid appears to be falling through because of another hostile bid (the original DPW bid was endorsed by the target).
The UK didn’t consider them a threat – although essentially anything in the UK can be sold to anybody – they are a pretty free market. The US is too.
Drop the UAE label please, it’s Dubai and a Dubai investment company for the citizens of Dubai (who hold UAE passports). The returns do not go to any of the other UAE members and the board is not influenced by them. DPW also has independent, western directors.
Look into Dubai before you denigrate them, please. They are different than some of the other members that constitute the UAE.
The funny thing is that the coming lack of oil brought this social transformation – why can Saudi Arabia run out of oil?:)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am#32 UAE’s our ally? Just like Saudia Arabia was our ally when they attacked us on 9/11? Has Bush held hands with the King of UAE yet?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 am42
I’m just mad at Schumer. I don’t think USA should have any relation of any sort with Muslim countries, however modern.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 amI am quite confused by this story.
I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.
What is the role of the private company here anyway? The larger issuess including not only national security but that privatization is actually something that “I hates me some bureaucrats” “anti-gummint” conservatievs, rather than support, should dislike as it actually results in the duplication of bureaucracies (having both a private and public one).
Is there any way for that aspect of the situation to gain traction — the aspect that businesses have bureaucracies too — so people who don’t like pencil pushers (since they bullied them in Middle School) should actually be against privatization?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:13 amBottom line – Dubai (and Abu Dhabi) should not be lumped in with the rest of the UAE. For the most part they act like sovereign states and have vastly different social structures. Dubai is the most tolerant and would probably rank as the most progressive Muslim country.
There are more foreigners in Dubai that citizens. They are also opening a massive financial district. Let’s give them some credit for trying to change.
And yes, they are ruled by a Sheik who has hereditary rule. Regardless, he’s at least a bit more enlightened than other Arab ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amActually W needs an incident before November in order to convince the American people to propagate his dictatorship. What better way than to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amRemind me again why the GOP is strong on national security.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amI’ve never one to see danger behind every tree, but so many weird things have been happening so fast that you have to wonder — is this government purposely trying to destroy the U.S. before the ‘08 elections?
Despite claiming to protect America, there’s been no real improvement in security (unless you mistake my 12 year old happy kid and her grandmother are shoe bombers). China bankrolls more and more of the U.S. economy while stealing trade and defense secrets. Internationally, we’re viewed as favorable as Russis (that of the old USSR with its Iron Curtain, gulags, etc.) Laws no longer matter because the executive has declared itself all-powerful, unaccountable to anyone for anything. We now torture without consequence, we spy without warrants. We silence dissent. We stack the Supreme Court and highjack the media. We let our enemies slip out of our hands, then attack another country under false pretenses. We sit by as a major US city disappears, taking a major oil and gas supply center with it, all the while doing nothing to ease our dependence on foreign oil. We attempt to destroy Social Security under the guise of fixing it, then try the same thing with health care. We cry over an inheritance tax then saddle future generations with national debt. We claim to unite and in the next sentence castigate anyone who thinks differently. We praise innovation, then attempt to teach our kids religious fairy tales of creation. And on, and on, until one day, we start sellling our ports to other nations “with troubling ties to international terrorism.”
You couldn’t do more harm more quickly if you tried. Which begs the question, are we trying?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:18 am#47
I’ll answer your question and the rest of the crap that people are assuming about this bid.
DPW WILL NOT OWN THE PORTS.
“I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.”
They don’t ‘run’ them, they ‘own’ them. They issue a concession to manage the ports. It’s publicly owned and privately managed.
Dubai Port Worlds is buying the CONCESSION to OPERATE but NOT OWN the ports in question from P&O (a UK company).
So ownership is not an issue.
For the alarmists out there, the port authorities can cancel the contracts for breach of the contractual stipulations which means running the ports, basically.
The idea is that it’s inefficient for the Port Authority to run what should be privately managed. It also gets the public money through concessions. The best part is that the port authority doesn’t have to pay for upgrades to the port.
Judge it by that please:)
And just so you all know, I’m not a wingnut.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am#32,
You don’t think this move would increase the possibility of a terrorist getting his way? I am sure the UAE has good intentions, are our ally, etc. However, this would increase the chances of terrorists gaining access. The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amYup, BushCo. Keeping America Safe. Or safer than it was. Or as safe as can be expected. Or safer than John Kerry could keep us. Or safer than, say, Iraq. Yeah. That’s it. We’re safer because we’re fighting a war somewhere else, not here. Safe as a bug in a rug in a house on fire.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amAnother thing to look at, if you’re a political realist is NEW ORLEANS. Its a BLATANT attempt to get political approval. The port is a mess, but operating. DPW will invest heavily in that port – it is attractive commercially – but will probably do more than they need just to show what great corporate citizens they are.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amand none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.”
DPW employs Western managers. The only people that are going to be working there are American staff and Western managers plus probably a couple Dubai reps to watch their investments.
They’re not importing a bunch of Arabs to be longshoremen.
Dubai would not want to lose 6.8 billion out of what is basically a fund to hold them over after the oil stops flowing.
Stop the UAE crap. This concerns Dubai which makes sovereign investment decisions. The same goes for political ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“and none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.”
Dubai is pretty secular. And no, they probably don’t, actually. Considering that tons of Westerners live in Dubai and aren’t getting killed shows that they have at least some restraint.
Try walking around Saudi Arabia. Alot different than walking around Dubai. Dubai is ‘the place to be’ for wealthy Americans, Europeans, and Asians.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:27 amThis is not a big deal. Most of the large shipping ports in this country are divided up into a series of terminals which are operated by big terminal operation companies. These include APM Terminals (a Danish company) and COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company). I think all that is happening here is that this Dubai Ports company will be operating terminals but security/oversight is still done by the goverment.
Also, Dubai is not the UAE. I don’t know how UAE got lumped into the discussion but it’s irrelevant.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 amPrecott Bush would have outsourced America’s ports to Krupp or Messerschmidt.
This is just an in-the-genes thing.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 am#49, Yep, I, too, am awaiting a “security” event this summer — just in time for the elections.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amooops — Late for work now.
Dubai will, at some point, list DPW on the Dubai stock exchange with global depositary receipts in the US. They want to spin this thing out and get some more interest in their financial district.
Yah, I’ve posted to much on this. We don’t need to be too xenophobic against Dubai. We would be concerned if it wasn’t Dubai or Abu Dhabi. The other members of the UAE are pretty repressive regimes.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amThis shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:34 amThere seems to be some sort of confusion that this a private transaction. The political aspect is approval. DPW made a bid for P&O over in the UK – I guess they won? Haven’t been keeping up on it since the initial offer/counterbid.
So, P&O has alot of American hedgefunds for shareholders looking for a quick profit. Mmmm financial community lobies. The bid is agreed so it’d look pretty shitty if the UK authorities have approved the bid (which they have) – and it’s for ports in the UK too – and the US denies it.
Denying it would also probably be ‘bad’ for Bush just because he’s trying to convice the Muslim world that we don’t hate them (which he does).
The ‘cartoon wars’ have made them especially sensitive. Funny how Bush through the State Department wouldn’t defend free speech.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:35 amLiberals and Prog.are cautious and want to put America and its needs first. Conservatives the opposite, who would have thunk it.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:36 amI think some of the neo cons are missing the point. Even if security is handeled by the US and even if the ports are still owned by the us, it is nto a good idea to reward those who want to hurt us. See what we did to Iraq, and they had nothing to do with 9/11. Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques. Imagine the outrage if CLinton had done this? Never mind, CLinton would have been impeached and removed from office long ago if he had followed the exact same course as curious george.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:37 amHey Beep52-Well said. Everyday we sink further down the rabbit hole.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 amIt seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 am“This shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.”
DPW made a public bid for a public company. The bid was agreed by the P&O board (including the independent directors). The ‘payout’ is DPW offering P&O shareholders alot of money for the company (it’s an all cash transaction, I believe – DPW can’t issue shares).
The only ‘influence peddling’ would be DPW hiring a Washington lobbying firm to make sure they don’t get sacked after winning the initial review.
Apparently some people here aren’t aware that this is a private transaction between two companies. The port authority owns the port, but P&O operates it. P&O sold that right to DPW for 6.8 billion (the initial bid was 2 billion lower btw).
DPW got their bid approved because 1.UK approved it 2. US investors benefit 3. it’s a commercial transaction 4. the bidder is Dubai and 5. Bushco wants to reward Dubai for being ‘progressive’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amMarie, (#13)
I think there are two possible explanations. I think Bush is working on behalf of the Arabs and has been all along. The Carlyle Group is allied with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Remember, it’s all about corporate power—-not abortion, not theocracy, and certainly not “protecting America”.
Another possible explanation is provided in #51 above. Great post by beep. This newest sell-out is the clearest indication yet that the power elite really does want to wreck this country, as though it’s outlived its usefulness.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amDubai…
Isn’t that where OBL had kidney treatments and met with CIA officials shortly before 9/11?
OBL has denied it, of course.
He’s so very honest…
February 17th, 2006 at 10:43 amWhat have the taliban done to upset the US? Stop the opium flow?
What has Bin Laden done to upset the US? They’ve got nothing on him, except a poor video clip of him admiting. This falls short of proof that he masterminded the 9/11.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:45 amAnd how about the fact that Mohamed Atta, tha “frontman” of the attacks was sailing on Abramoff’s casino ships?
#52 – I agree. I am a huge TP fan, but this is a god-awful post. Firstly, there’s no friggin’ outsourcing. P&O, a listed UK company, currently operates the 6 ports. Dubai ports is bidding for P&O, as they have every right to do. Unless the Brits block the bid, this deal goes ahead. End of story. If there are genuine security concerns about this, it is because Chimp has done dicksquat to improve port security since 9/11. This has nothing to do with DPW’s bid.
Come on TP. You can do better than the winger xenophobes who are all shit-scared at the thought of foreigners running a port. And besides, one of the reasons they can afford this purchase is because we still buy so much friggin’ oil from this part of the world. That’s a legitimate angle to this story.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am“It seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.”
No, it appears that P&O shareholders want DPW’s cash. P&O is a UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY. The US – I suppose you mean as in government – isn’t getting money. (although the port authorities, especially New Orleans, get free upgrades to their ports).
DPW will also have to invest heavily in the tracks that link the ports to the railroads. They are really, really congested. Some of these ports also don’t stack containers b/c of longshoreman opposition (stacking saves space and time).
“Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques.”
UAE does not equal Dubai in any real sense. Seeing that soccer stars, hollywood folks, etc are going to Dubai and buying houses – that alcohol freely flows, that the nonbelievers are not getting butchered – I’d say that’s pretty progessive.
The population of Dubai is actually quite small. It’s not exactly secular but they are cooperative.
They own Emirates Airlines for all those who care.
Anyway, they’re probably overpaying but they want to become a big player and draw in capital to Dubai.
Most of this relates to the Dubai stock exchange. At some point Dubai will want to list DPW to get a lumpsum payment and find something else to buy.
Oh, and not that long ago Dubai was a pretty boring place. Running out of oil does wonders for countries.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:48 amActually I wouldn’t worry about this too much. In ten years these sea ports will all be offshore reefs.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:49 am#73, I agree with you DF, this is the TP equivalent of raising the ‘threat level’. Did you do a similar one on China bidding for Unocal? This makes Lou Dobbs sound sensible. Just wondering.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amJames are you sure your not a wingnut? I wouldn’t put it past you. All the regular wingnuts have retreated lately, likely because a new approach was being implemented. Now here you are, the new form of Troll, acting like you are not a troll, appearing to be moderate. The give away is that you are all of the sudden here out of nowhere, and you are persistent, don’t seem to be giving up anytime soon.
The new Troll strategy: less inflammatory, regular names, denying being a wingnut, appearing moderate, not trying to derail the topic.
Message to RNC, your new strategy has been found out, in one day.
Message to
February 17th, 2006 at 10:52 am#73
Thanks for confirming I’m not the only other TP fan with such views.
Oh, you mentioned the UK approving the bid. They did make an approval.
P&O has a lossmaking ferry service across the Channel. DPW was the only bidder willing to keep it. That got them political points because the ferry people are Labor supporters. (as in the Labor party).
The feds inspect these ports. There are radiation detectors installed now (hugely expensive for the operators and a headache b/c of false positives) and they are inspected all the time.
This is not like DPW gets the concession and runs it like they want. They get inspected and have to do whatever the hell the US FBI/CIA/etc want.
Here’s the deal – If DPW really wanted to screw us, they wouldn’t buy these ports. Because it’s a concession, the port authorities can void the concession if there’s a major breach in the contract – say security.
That’d make 6.8 billion plus billions more in investment disappear. And the port authorities would get to keep all the nice new cranes, tracks, radiation detectors, etc.
Did I mention the people who INSPECT CONTAINERS are not the operators? They’re the feds.
Running a port means charging fees, unloading the crap, stacking it, keeping track of it, taking it down and putting it on a semi or train, and saying goodbye. It really doesn’t have much to do with security.
Besides, the longshoremen, who actually do everything, are still going to be Americans. The financial benefits of operating the port just goes to DPW instead of a UK company.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amI think it is a mistake to lump Liberals and Proressives.
The Dems and Repubs are in a symbiotic gridlock. Neither will ever fracture enough to spawn a real independent party. I feel the future of America and the security of my children rest in the end of the current 2 party system.
This is why Hackett was shelved.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am#79, so it was Schumer who demagogued this issue on the ports in the first place and also Schumer who stabbed Hackett in the back? Its a one-party state in all but name, AR, with one-dollar, one-vote.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:00 amI just rolled and smoked a big fat Dubai.
-GSD
February 17th, 2006 at 11:01 amThere goes the neighborhood.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:05 amDon’t worry. Bush will spy on them.
#77
I post pretty frequently. Just not in all the posts. TP happens to be my favorite blog.
Apparently disagreeing with this post (and one other two months ago?) qualifies me as a wingnut.
I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.
It’s Dubai. Ever looked up on Dubai? I’d actually like to live there. Unfortunately, I don’t have nearly enough money for the kind of places they’re putting up.
What I’m trying to convey is that Dubai is independent and progressive. It’s not fair to lump them in with Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
I also had an issue of linking actions in other UAE members to Dubai. Since everyone here is assuming the UAE is some sort of central system – it’s not. It’s a confederation where are the members get to do basically whatever they please.
I’m definately anti-bush, but I’m not for xenophobic type behavior. I’m also not for linking to Foxnews.:)
Disagreeing with anti-business stuff is not so bad. My concern is that if the UK govt accepted it and P&O did too then we have a pretty high bar to reach.
Joining FoxNews in bashing ANY muslim country is not so great. Turkey is trying to join the EU, Dubai is trying to join the international financial community.
And no, you don’t get limbs cut off in Dubai. And you can drink, eat publicly during Rammadan, etc. Sort of like Lebanon used to be.
I’d just like it if we didn’t group all Muslim states into one category.
The problem, as I see it, is we’re quick to defend individual Muslims (which we should), but also quick to attack states that are muslim.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amso, “james”…yes, you sure are persistant…
February 17th, 2006 at 11:09 amjust who/what are you, to be SO knowledgable…
how about some links to the facts you’ve been passing out here…
#77
A wingnut wouldn’t be defending Dubai.:) I’m defending a progressive (for the area) government that is moving away from oil.
I like a country that lets me drink, eat when I please, and not pray if I choose. I like the idea of a nice, hot place with nice homes and lots of Americans and Europeans.
Wingnuts don’t defend muslim countries – they attack them.
The only ‘issue’ with Dubai is that, yes, the Sheik runs it. The upside is that he’s investing the petrodollars while they still exist for the people. Another upside is that their citizens aren’t killing the Westerners.
My ‘test’ for a tolerant muslim country is whether the majority foreign population is attacked by the muslims. Not happening in Dubai.
I’d feel pretty safe walking around in Dubai. I wouldn’t, at all, in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Yemen, etc.
Oh, Dubai also operates the LARGEST USED CAR AUCTION! Woo. They’re toyotas, etc from Japan that are used or damaged. They get sent on throughout the middle east and Africa. Pretty cool tent car city they have going.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 am#85, I’ve been to Dubai and have friends living there, I can vouch for what James is saying. I’m disappointed to notice quite a few negative stereotypical comments about muslims in general in here – more in keeping with the trolls who visit here than anything else.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am#78 – No worries. This is a total airshot. You understand a heck of a lot more about the running of a port; I just know that we have no right interfering in a merger between two foreign public companies.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:17 amJame – I don’t think your a wingnut, but your not looking at the big picture.
You say that Dubai is not part of the hatred toward America. Maybe they are not, but I would rather not take that chance right this moment. Perhaps 10-15 years down the road, this might make more sense.
It would be like allowing a company who is composed of Japanees owned individuals obtaining rights to our ports after we bombed them for the attack of Pearl Harbor.
Don’t you see the connection here? They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.
Hope this makes sense?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:18 amDPW’s Site
http://www.dpiterminals.com/
For some info on Dubai check out their site:
http://www.dubaicityguide.com/main/index.asp
All in english…
For info on tourism in general check out:
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/
Dubai gov
http://www.dm.gov.ae/portal/dt?desktop.suid=uid=ENanonymous,ou=people,o=public,dc=dm,dc=gov,dc=ae
CIA factsheet on UAE
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html
Non-fox story on the P&O deal:
February 17th, 2006 at 11:22 amhttp://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=22108
ah yes the bush administration at work again, what a sublime situation
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 am87
That’s interesting. On the surface the Republicans are percieved as enabling terror through trade practices while Democrats are percieved as being hostile and stereotypical about Muslims (myself included).
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 amI think any Muslim country that deals with America will produce terrorists. So my choice is to abandon these countries. The American choice is to engage and change these countries and increase police powers everywhere.
Oh, management structure.
http://www.dpiterminals.com/members.asp?MCatID=3&PageID=10&SubPageID=4&PSID=1
As you can see, EIGHT of the NINE managers are either American, European, or Asian. (The CEO is from Dubai). It’s about half and half.
Anyway, thought you’d like to know that arabs don’t exactly run the company:)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 amJames – “I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.”
I just visited their web page and there are 2 buttons: UAE, International.
So Dubai is not related to UAE? We can’t lump them in with UAE? Please explain?
They are CLEARLY connected with UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am#89, 92
I don’t the a nativist (isolationist) policy is such a terrific idea.
I realize that people have concerns about this. Call your rep and senator.
Also – I don’t understand something here. There’s the big deal about doing business with Arabs on ports…but we get alot of our oil from them (and Venezuela). That far outstrips DPW.
Yes, I know we’d all like to become more fuel efficient. I know I would (I drive a diesel jetta – 54mpg – waiting for a hybrid version that will make the toyots look bad:)). I keep the house at 64 degrees (and it’s sort of cold here) and I use all flourescent lighting. That’s more because I like to save money, but switching bulbs out does alot.
The Middle East exists and we have to acknowledge it. As for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:38 am#94
the UAE and INTERNATIONAL buttons are if you are interested in their UAE or international ports:)
They run some pretty large container transhipment terminals there. It’s where they started. So – it’s sort of natural to have a link to that.
.ae is the domain for the UAE. The issue is to not lump Dubai in with the other members of the UAE. I’m not saying it isn’t a part of it – but the structure of the government is such that you can do what you wish within your own country, sheik wise. That’s why some are backwaters and some aren’t.
It’s also why some parts of the UAE are not good places to visit.
A good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation. You basically did as you pleased.
Anyway, the UAE exists only because the UK made it so. Hmm, sort of like ISRAEL and IRAQ. (The UK was their colonial ruler until 1971). The UK decided what the country would look like when they colonized it. Same deal with Iraq, same deal with Israel. (to an extent).
As a side note, my grandfather served in the Palestinian Police (UK army). Apparently it was hellish what with everyone hating you.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhat makes me think after reading what James has to say on this subject, that over time and eventually, this fish that is sitting out in the sun will start to really stink like other Republican ventures. I’ll just have sit back and watch this one unfold(as if I had a choice). Note: mental experiment on forming unbiased opinions(doomed to failure, but who knows?)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amJames, theres a HUGE difference between buying something from the Middle East and having them run our ports. GEEZE.
OK, let me try and put it another way. It would be like Los Angeles being run by the Bloods or Cripts. Sure, they may have changed and the ones that are now operating on their own have changed, but they are still part of the gang. Not to say that they can’t change, but there GENERALLY is a life long alegance to the gang.
So this would be OK to have a company run by members of the Bloods or Cripts running LA?
It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:50 amWhats up with that
February 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amA good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation.
It is if you’re totally ignorant of the world outside your borders. Each UAE member is a kingdom.
I guess if Bush is exporting democracy, he has to import dictatorship, or else we have a trade gap.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:57 amAs for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
Yes, it’s not like we sent the Flying Tigers, human rights investigators, and eventually the entire Pacific Navy after them, is it?
Like Bush said, we’ve had a hundred years of uniterupted good relations with Japan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmIt wasn’t until one morning in December we realized that we didn’t like their method of managing our ports, eh James?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmwell terry, thanks for the “voucher”, but i think “james” can surely speak for himself…i just want to be able to verify any “credentials”… that’s not asking too much, i think…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmso, bacck to my first question: james, who/what are you? …as if…
but thanks for the “links”
> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @
com’on, what do you think 9/11 was.and new orleans. this peckerwood (bushy)knew what was coming and the black and white prove it. all he is doing is banking on the american people to sop up is rhetoric like biscuts and gravy. and i have to agree that there are alot of stupid folks out there lickin the plates. and someone mentioned we owe money: we owe china 50 billion dollars, thanks bush. we owe saudi. we do not own america. we do not own our own money.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#92, so the US should avoid talking to:
Turkey – world’s oldest secular democracy which just happens to be muslim
Malaysia – a moderate muslim state
Morocco – bad luck for the new gulag they are building there
Indonesia – a democratic success story of the last five years
Hmm, not a very well-thought out comment.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis move warrants a closer look simply because our ports are still our most vulnerable targets. Only 5% of all containers coming into the country are actually inspected.
Also, the committe that approved this sale – the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment – is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. In 2004, DP World purchased part of the American company CSX for over $1 billion. Before he became Treasury Secretary, John Snow was Chairman and CEO of CSX. Is this just one more example of back room wheeling and dealing?
And Shumer is not the only politician voicing his concerns, so are Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The same link above also describes P&O’s duties (which will now became Dubai Ports duties) this way: “That firm hires workers to load containers on and off vessels stopping at state-owned terminals and other docks…Though CP&P Ports Virginia has only about 20 permanent employees, it hires longshoremen – ranging from 10 to a few hundred a day – to load and offload vessels calling on the local port, said Claire Gosnell, a P&O spokeswoman in London.”
Finally, considering we have soldiers in the Middle East fighting and DYING to keep us safe here at home, don’t we owe it to them to move slowly on this and make sure this is in our country’s best interest?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pmOur ports are a critical component of our national security. It seems irresponsible to me to outsource this component to a foreign power. It is not xenophobic to seek to control our nationl security. We must draw a line somewhere. Should we outsource our police forces, too? That might be cheaper.
It could be that currently, the UAE is our bestest buddy – a paragon of reasonableness. That still does not justify entrusting them with our ports.
The administration wants to do this because it will benefit Bush’s rich foreign friends. Even if George has looked into their soul and decided they are good people, I’m not reassured.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIf you don’t support giving control of our ports to the Bush family Taliban friends then you are unpatriotic.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#103, OK then, maybe I should just say that I agree with James. I don’t think he needs to justify himself to anyone, his posted facts and links are all I need.
#98, ‘bloods and crips’ – I’ve ridden a few P&O Ferries in my time, I don’t recall any gangsta rap being played in the bars. And what’s this?
You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. If you continue to think like that and have your actions reflect that thought, then you will have your Clash of Civilizations. Its what Bin Laden wanst and I think its what the PNAC agenda is too. Your racism is starting to show…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
Comment by Dubya — February 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Bingo! And after we’ll hear:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIt had to have been Iran. We have the intelligence.
Now aren’t y’all glad we decided to bomb them earlier?
If we hadn’t, they may have smuggled in many more, and it could have been much worse.
Now then, all you folks stay huddled up with yer visqueen & duct tape, we’ll protect ya.
Gerald
Sad, but that is the mindset of the eunuch kultists of Bush.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#1 – Of course it makes us safer – and by us I mean the administration and their cronies and by safer I mean more wealthy. That is the only goal and they are willing to look like incompetent buffoons to achieve it.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
“You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. ”
Your missing the point!!!!!!!!!!!!1
It’s an example and is meant to help demonstrate the issue moron.
OK, let me try it another way with you. (GEEZE).
Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?
Damn, why is it so hard for the simple things to sink in?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmYes Dreary
They have passed the point of even caring if exposed. As long as a “result” is achieved, all is proceeding to plan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm[...] UPDATE: ThinkProgress.org has some thoughts to add on the topic. The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmTime for the squating eunuchs to dig the “Saddam hole” behind the washer in the basement.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm“#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:”
How are they contradictory?
” #98 “It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.—
I am saying that we should be cautious here. Dont you see the words “just jump in”? Definition – use some caution.
” #89 “They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.—
And I am saying we need to be cuatious here.
How is that contradictory. GEEZE
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#107, Peter, you need to read the article: the ports are already ‘outsourced to a foreign power’. I don’t wish to scare you but it’s one which has fought the US twice already, burned Washington and threatened to hang the President. They once tried to impose their empire on over 25% of the earth’s surface, invented the concentration camp and once controlled half the world’s oil supply.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmIt’s all interconnected by money, power, position; USA is becoming more like UAE each day….join the dots between those in power within/between each ‘monarchy’.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pmHey hey hey! Saudi Arabia is offering 2.3 Billion to “safeguard” the Statue of Liberty. Who cares why…thats 2.3 BILLION!!!
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#118 – “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together” and “a race we are fighting” – of course that’s contradictory – you are lumping all muslims together
February 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm“Outsourcing” America until it ceases to exist.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#119 – yeah and the Jews persecuted Christ. We have moved past that too. Your suggesting that during these times that you are stating that we were offering our ports to these countries, or the same race of people.
Your trying to say that directly after, or during, a conflict with a race of people that we should just let them in without any reservations or concerns.
DAMN, some people are soooooooo stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm105
Don’t get uppity with me, Terry. I know you don’t live in America. Right or wrong, Muslims are Muslims. And Christians here don’t like ‘em. Check your riots map, punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmAuthoritarian Rush Eunuch
Go squat in your “hole of Saddam” punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm#122
“#118 – “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together†and “a race we are fighting†– of course that’s contradictory – you are lumping all muslims together
Comment by TerrytheTurtle ”
So I guess when someone says that a large majority of the mexicans in Arizona are illegal aliens, that they are refering to ALL mexicans? Or by saying that a large portion of the black people who live in the getto steals to survive is stating that ALL blacks steal? Or to say that because a large portion of the white people in the south hate non-white people is the same as saying that all white people hat non-white people?
Damn man, you need help.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmComment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:42 am
Actually we just pointed out the fact that a Saudi owns a 5% stake in Fox news and it has been proven that he has had headlines changed so as not to look bad for Saudis.
But you wouldn’t know that would you. Because you don’t read anything, absorb anything or learn anything beyond you partisanship.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pmAuthoritarian Rush
Progressive are not stupid. It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists… going from that to saying that the idiot biggoted christians dont like muslims is moving from common sense into racist type thought… If the christians don’t like em that is only because the christians dont follow their own religion. If they dont know which to trust and common sense dictates caution then that is entirely different.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#127, I have said nothing: you said the words ‘a race we are fighting’. You are the one lumping all muslims together as the ‘race we are fighting’, directly contradicting the ‘I’m not trying…’ Anytime I see one of those sentences, there’s a ‘but’ in it. It’s pretty obvious where you stand.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm130/127
Why all the mincing of words… would it not be easy to simply say that the majority of the problems we are dealing with are coming from arab countries? How is that any different than say arab race? or muslim religion? Unless you are a redneck KKK nazi wannabe then no one thinks someone means every person in that race or country or whatever.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#130 – So if I refer to a black country as a race of people I am being racist? Or how about if I call Japan a race of people, am I being racist? How about Russians as a race of people, am I being racist?
Get a fvcking clue.
Hey MORON, heres the definition of race for you.
A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
The Bushites would let this Dubai-owned company run our ports because, um, they don’t actually give one whit about our national security. C’mon, they Invade Iraq and turn it into a terrorist breeding ground, create a Hamas-led government because of their vacuum of leadership with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, out a CIA agent who was working on tracking Iran’s nuclear weapons buildup and black market interest, our most vulnerable cities still don’t have the allocations to do half of the necessary measures to protect their citizens.
It’s a joke. The jig is up, or should be. But the mainstream media keeps reporting this administrations intentional misdeeds and blunders as if they’re doing commentary for a sporting event. “Well, we’re not sure how the White House will turn this one around, Brian.” And then Rove lobs them another big ball of cheese that they’re more than ready to eat.
No one in this administration gives a rodent’s whisker about our citizens or our soldiers. They are traitors, so the Dubai contract should surprise no one. What would be surprising is if the mainstream press gives it much play.
Don’t hold your breath.
http://www.mediabloodhound.com
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmGuys
You are arguing semantics here. The only question to be answered is; does this make the U.S. safer? Yes or No?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pmFor any fools above who are actually falling for this, you get your buttons pushed pretty easily. You’re like doggies on a leash getting lead around by their master, hoping for a milkbone.
An evil external force with no allegiance to the national interests of America has the White House, Capitol Hill, and the mainstream media and entertainment industries under control and/or bought off. This force has lied us into an illegal and unnecessary war, brought us the increasing liquidation of the middle class, and is sucking the financial lifeblood out of this once great land at a positively terrifying pace. America will be a spent husk when they’re done using us, with a profile of a 3rd world country. This force has purposely created a climate where chances for global war and the diminution of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are greatly enhanced.
And yet, in the face of this dire threat now threatening all of us, what is it that you peckerheads are worried about? A port management company that happens to be from an Arab country getting some contracts in the USA.
What is a rationally minded person supposed to make of that?
You dumbed down idiots, where’s your sense of recognition and proportion? Time is short, wake the hell up.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#125, Pointing out uncomfortable truths is ‘getting uppity’ eh?
#124 and you said it again: “or during, a conflict with a race of people” – you are lumping all muslims together.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm“It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists…”
This is a hasty generalization. There exists a fundamental clash of civilizations here twixt AMERICANS (Christian or otherwise), and Muslims. When Terry talks about Muslim “democracies” he’s talking about countries that haven’t got themselves up to speed with a successful campaign/pushback against American impirialism.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmDon’t you see how quickly Iran turned? Iran was on the verge of getting their intellectual verve back! The most wonderful man I ever met is from Iran. He left during the Revolution. That was a long time ago. What we have here is broken.
#132 – the issue is that you are seemingly justifying your stance on the port issue on the grounds that they are muslim and that’s all and you protest weakly that you are not earlier in your posts. Is your position that the US is at war with all muslims or not? Come on, you can do it without using the ‘f’ word and without a personal attack – it would help your credibility, you know.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHey Radon – Your the one who seems to be getting your buttons pushed pretty easily. This all ties in with all the other stuff you talked about. One is just as important as the other. It’s like saying that we don’t need to worry about how someone died, because they are already dead.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#137 – AR – check your facts:
Turkey, 2003 – refused to allow the US to invade Iraq from Turkey, despite Paul Wolfowitz demanding that the Turkish Army take control of the country. That looks like a muslim democracy that was ‘up to speed’ with US imperialism don;t you think?
And the clash of civilizations exists if you want it to exist and if enough people think it’s OK to arbitrarily divide up mankind because of no other system than color or religion. Welcome to the New Dark Ages…thanks a lot.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#135
What would you say about a middle eastern country allowed to work in the World Trade Center towers prior to 9/11? In a time when America should be bulking up on our defense here at home and at a time when every nonNeoCon is constantly called yellow bellyed communists for not wanting to drink the blood of the Iraqis we are being told be these same people that they also think that letting middle eastern countries run out ports? air ports? banks? millitary? Either they believe their own crap about protecting America or they dont and this shows they do not. I DO NOT want ANY arab country working in sensitive areas in America any time soon. Not guarding our borders with Canada and Mexico. Not “cleaning” our airplanes… not working as scientists in our nuclear labs…none of that. How foolish we will look if in the end we get hit again because of it. And who will pay the most if it does happen again? Lady Liberty.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThanx for stopping by Radon but Everyone here knows that already, but did you get a charge out of imagining that you are the only one in the know?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmGo suck on your Radon mitigation exhaust fan, Radon.
“RemoveBush”
That part I get ;-)
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#136
What are you wanting? You want him to list the names and phone#s of all the people he specifically is talking about?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#138 – It’s a little difficult when a person with blinders on keeps repeating the same thing rather than looking around and realizing that there is more around them then what they see in front of them.
For example:
You keep pointing out that I am refering to ALL Muslims because I say race. How would you prefer me to speak of them? Towel heads? (rather racist don’t you think?) I think that calling muslims from the Middle East a race of people, which by definition is true, that this is rather nuetral.
But instead of seeing the conversation as it is, you wish to try and make it out that this is some kind of racist comment. Or that the comment is corraling all Muslims into the same group. When you refer to a race, then by definition as well this does mean that ALL MUSLIMS are included. It’s kind of a catch 22 don’t you think?
So how do you feel the best way to refer to Muslims in the Middle East who are of the same race who we are fighting should be refered to? I think I have done a DAMN FINE JOB of being non-racist or discriminitive of the Muslims.
But to say that because a few don’t represent the masses is a little nieve as well. Especially when over 80% of the Iraqis think that it is just fine for the Americans to be blown up. So if 100% of the Iraqis are Muslims, and 80% think that it is OK to blow up American soldiers……. Well, I think (Hope) you may see the point, but I doubt it.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmRadon,
Who the hell are you addressing. Apparently you have typed the wrong URL into your browser. try Free Republic or another right wing site.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAuthoritarian Rush 137
The conflict is not civilizations. What cartoons I watch or religion I have or soft drink I buy means nothing to the arabs. They are not like christians. They are not coming over here trying to convert everyone. The conflict is the Reasoned/Scientific world verse the Fundamentalists. The religious fundamentalists are “racists” at their core. They don’t need religion as their excuse they can simply say “Jew” or “American” or “Outsider” or “Whites”. The other religious people and the non religious people dont give a crap about what the fighting is over. The religious fundamentalists in the middle east are using their bigotry to stir up hate and the fundamentalists in America are doing the same thing. IF not that we should… but IF we could launch all those people out into space from both sides who in the hell would be standing up on podiums convincing normal people to go kill in the name of their “peaceful” religion??? NO ONE. A world without fundamentalists of any kind is a much more peaceful world.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmFor fuck sake people, why are you talking anything about race or religion?
This issue is about port security of the United States outsourced to a company wholly owned by a foreign country (UAE) with known ties to terrorist entities!
Will the U.S. be more or less secure with this contract? That is the only question with merit.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#145, OK, good, some progrss here – so you are referring to all muslims when you say race. Fine. Now can you answer the question: is your stance on the ports issue simply because the new owners are muslim? Because that’s how I see your posts. If you can answer that, I will explain what I mean, because you are still not getting my point.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#148, Citizen: the US ports in question are currently outsourced to a company owned by the country which supplied the shoe bomber, so why is this any different?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#149 – Yes! I DO NOT WANT ANY MUSLIMS, AT THIS MOMENT, OWNING ANY PORTS IN THIS COUNTRY.
This is a matter of security. If security is such a big deal to the Republicans, then why is this not of any concern. This is a company onwed and operated by Muslims. Are they not the same race or religion that we are currently fighting 2 wars, possible 3, with?
Where in the world am I off on this. NO, MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT BE ALOWED TO RUN OUR PORTS (PERIOD), at this time.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#150 – WERE NOT AT WAR WITH THIS COUNTRY, or race of people from this country GEEZE!
February 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pmTerry
Yes, there is huge difference. UAE has known ties to terrorist organizations. Great Briton does not.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pm150)
Most people from Britian did not grow up hearing from their parents that America is the devil. The people from the arab countries did. So common sense dictates that if you are 1) Smart – You do not let arab people into sensitive areas in America… 2) Really smart – You do not let any people from any foreign country into sensitive areas in America …
If this was 1790 and Britian wanted to “Manage” our major ports what do you think Mr. Franklin and George Washington would have to say about it?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmRemoveBush
Come on now, I know Muslims who I would trust with my life. It is about a country with ties to terrorism that I have the problem with, not Muslims at large.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmSeriously people you are treating RemoveBush like he is a southern rightwing nut job. If you can not understand what he means then that is just plain brain dead.
If you are caught out in the Iraqi desert and you see a group of british around you in one direction and a group of “muslim arabs” in the other direction and you are an American and you dont see any aggresiveness from either group of people which group of people would you “meander” towards? Just as a matter of common sense?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#155 – I don’t have a problem with Muslims at large. I live in a state with one of the largest Muslim populations in America. I have no problem with that, and I live just a few, 20 – 30 miles from them.
The issue is that given the current situation we are in with the Middle East, it is not VERY SMART to just turn our ports over to the Middle East.
It’s like the police turning over all their weapons to the bad guys to show that they want to be friends. Sure not all the bad guys will end up doing anything with the weapons, but there will be a few that will turn those weapons on the police.
This is the point. With the LINKS, this may be a very serious problem.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:36 pmTerry
I understand your concern of those who are posting “not trusting Muslims” as a blanket condemnation. It is not about Islam, it is about the UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pmRemoveBush
I totally agree with you. But do you see that a blanket use of “Muslims” does not focus upon the UAE in particular?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#151 – Thank you, you’ve made it perfectly clear what you think about all muslims. Here’s your bonus link. And last time I looked, the US was not at war with the UAE either.
#154 – Gerald, I believe that it was more along the lines of ‘the Communists are devils’, a bit like here – same idea, different boogey man.
#153 – OK Citizen, you’ve got a point, is the UAE on the US terror-nations list? Not that makes any diference I know, Saddam was on it until Reagan took him off the list, even while there were various Abu this-and-that’s in Baghdad. Second, where’s your link on the UAE as a state sponsor of terror? Sure, two of the 19 were from UAE and Richard Reid was from Britain and Moussaoui holds a French passport and Tim McVeigh was from where?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI’d have to agree that RemoveBush is off target here.
Stereotyping an entire group is based on a single aspect of their demographic is…. well, really really bad to put it mildly.
I’m not pleased about this situation because the country in question had direct ties to the 9/11 attacks. Not because the country is full of Muslims.
Hell, if The Cayman Islands had ties to any terrorist attacks, I’d be wary of letting them be in control of vital strategic US holings.
Oh, and Radon – put the crack pipe down and go sleep it off.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#159 – Regardless… I don’t see the need to allow our ports to be run by Muslims whether linked to the UAE or not. Given the hostile situation we are in, and may be in another situation soon, it does not make sense to have a nationality or race in control of our ports.
I don’t know how else to say it without saying race, or “blanket use of Muslims”, given the large number of Muslims that really don’t like us. So forgive me if I take the 60,000 or more wounded and dead soldiers as a sign of a group of people that do not like us as being concerned.
This is the problem as I see it. Terry still has not answered my previous question, so I guess I’m right about the situation.
“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?”
February 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pmTerry,
February 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe are enough facts to go around. Bottom line is you seem to want democratization or something from Americans or someone that will make the world a better place for Arabs? Muslims? Everyone? And I’m telling you that the American Neocon does not have these people’s best interest at heart and they never will. And they are ruining it for me and mine by making my world an unsafe place. And it fills me with contempt for both parties.
#51, beep
February 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pmGreat post — what the hell is happening here! I can’t believe what I am seeing with my own eyes and it is going on unchecked. My imagination can run wild here and start thinking that the Saudis are behind everything and BushCo is the agent set up here to do aid them in controlling the world.
157
So good to know you’re not an anti-Muslim bigot or anything then then. I’ll bet some of your best friends are Arabs.
Well blowhard, if by chance you have finished pontificating on the evils of Arab port management, what sage advice can you grace us with on taking back our Foreign Policy and Intelligence apparatus from who and where it’s been outsourced?
But, gosh, only if you don’t think it’s VERY SMART to have the US slavishly pursue the foreign policy goals of a foreign land. ‘Cause ya know, with the LINKS, this may be a very serious problem.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmSorry RB – which question?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#163, Now we are more less in agreement. let me ask you this – when you read the American Declaration of Independence – who do you think it should apply to?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#161 – You and I say almost the same thing, but I’m off base? As I stated previously, over 80% of the Muslims in Iraq think that its OK to blow up Americans. So with that thought process, where am I incorrect to lump all Muslims in this discussion?
It does not matter what race, or religion, is being delt with. If the majority in a particular instance is condoning killing then I have to believe that it is not in the best interrest of America to allow that culture of people to run our ports.
Please explain to me how I am “off target here.”? You stated it very well with “if The Cayman Islands had ties to any terrorist attacks, I’d be wary of letting them be in control of vital strategic US holings.”. So would it be an incorrect statement to say that I don’t want Jamakins to run our ports because the large majority of them condone killing Americans?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmNot all Muslims are bad. If we start considering all Musilims bad, then we are no better than the chicken shit right wingers who think we are having a crusade.
The issue is the specific country that is being given control of the ports. Namely the UAE.
Here, this is from the 9/11 Commission Report. Speciifically the Monograph on Terrorist Financing
It goes on and on through out the entire 9/11 Commission’s Report.
This is about a country, not a religion.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#168, ah, if I were to say to you that 80% of the people think its OK to blow up Americans, what would you say then? In other words, is it that they are muslim that makes them want to blow up Americans or because their country is a disaster, their sewers don’t work, their children are mal-nourished etc etc and they blame the Americans? I’m not muslim and if the Americans did that to me, I’d want to blow them up too.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#165 – Hey buttwipe, I don’t agree with our foreign policies, but I don’t make them now do I?
If you want to start being a jerk, I can be one as well. But if you want to have a debate, that’s fine too. The choice is yours.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNow Spudge has cut through the issue, thanks Spudge. So the UAE is on the US terror list then? If not why not?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmYou and I say almost the same thing, but I’m off base? As I stated previously, over 80% of the Muslims in Iraq think that its OK to blow up Americans. So with that thought process, where am I incorrect to lump all Muslims in this discussion?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
This is equivalent to saying that all Catholics are bad because the Bush administration has a tizzy fit everytime Chavez opens his mouth.
Most Venezuelans oppose Pres Bush’s policy towards their country. Most Venezuelans are Catholic. With your thought process, would you say the Vatican should also suffer the wrath of the US’ foreign policy?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#170 – You can twist this all you want, but it does not change the point. I agree that I too would do the same. It still does not change the fact. Muslims, whether it be through a company or country, should not be allowed to buy our ports at least at this moment.
What part of “I don’t have any issue with Muslims as a whole”, but when we are fighting a group of Muslims it does not seem like a very smart thing to do.
You still have not answered my question.
“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?â€
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm168:
You answered your own question.
Muslims are members of a religion. Not a country.
UAE is a country. Not a religion.
Would you say the same thing about all Christians, Jews, Pagans, whatever? No, because you would look at their nationality as well.
Oh, and where did you invent the 80% of all Iraqis think it’s okay to blow up Americans?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmTo all who are taking the words written down as AN EXACT MEANING, rather than the analogy that has been presented at least a dozen times, need to go back through and re-read the posts.
If you have to….. Print it out, as I have provided multiple examples to convey the point.
“This is equivalent to saying that all Catholics are bad because the Bush administration has a tizzy fit everytime Chavez opens his mouth. Comment by Gregor Samsa ”
Not even close! We are not in a battle with these people or this country. There is no comparision. If we were to have a battle with Mexico, would it be so wrong to reject a company made up of Mexicans to run our ports? Seriously, we should not allow any culture of the same culture we are fighting to buy rights to sensitive areas of our country during this time.
What part of SECURITY don’t you understand? It may be that these people associated with the company has no ties to the radical Muslims, but are you willing to risk your life, or the lifes of other Americans on this? I AM NOT.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm#174, thanks for reminding me. The obvious answer is ‘no’.
Now a question for you: how do you know that his brother has the same views?
You assume he does because he’s the brother? And if you act on that assumption and in fact the brother hates his brother for what he did, how does he feel after you treat him like crap? Maybe he feels like his brother had a point after all.
Your straw man is not equivalent, you have not proved that all muslims hold the same view as the 19 hijackers. To assume so is… well, did you look at your bonus link?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pm“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?â€
Nope. I probably wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t lump everyone that had that guy’s religion into one group and assume that I know everything about every single one of them.
You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#great… give control over our ports to Muslim countries… why don’t we have Saudi Arabia run Homeland Security?
Comment by Pete Bogs — February 17, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Isnt Thats Israels Job?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTerrytheTurtle
No, the UAE is not on the
While checking for the UAE being listed, I came across this report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) released on October 5, 2001 and noticed something strange.
2001 Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
October 5, 2001
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2001/5258.htm
This is less than a month after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers. The largest attack on US soil and the largest attack on American citizens since Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Why is al Qaida listed way down in the 21st spot?
Other than al Qaida and al Jihad, all the others on the list seem to be alphabetical. It appears to me that al Qaida and al Jihad were thrown in at the last minute and were randomly dumped anywhere in the list and not put in alphabetical order. Why?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#178 – And you can tell who has that mindset? Especially when we are fighting 2, maybe 3, battles with this group of religious people.
Your willing to allow a group of people that we are battling to run our sensitive parts of our nation? Let’s say that we do something else that is even more stupid than what we have already done. How sympethetic could the new company be to allow something to happen to one of the ports? Are you 100% confident that the company members would not turn their head if they were to disagree with our policies?
This is the problem!
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmNow you’re getting preachy, Terry.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI’m just mad a Schumer.
He knows this port situation does not make America less safe.
Schumer is fear mongering for political gain.
Which is unrelated to my views about foreign policy.
176:
RB – dude, we aren’t fighting Muslims.
We’re fighting terrorists (well, kinda… that’s debatable at this point) who happen to be Muslim.
It’s like saying in World War II we were fighting Christians. No, we were fighting Nazis who happened to think they were Christian.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#175, Bob the 80% may not be actual, but the sentiment is accurate:
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThat first sentence ahould have been:
“No, the UAE is not on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.”
February 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pm181
Riddle me this:
Are all Muslims terrorists?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmNot even close! We are not in a battle with these people or this country. There is no comparision. If we were to have a battle with Mexico, would it be so wrong to reject a company made up of Mexicans to run our ports?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
No, it wouldn’t -but that’t not what you are saying.
What you are saying would translate into: “We have a war with Mexico, most Mexicans are Catholic -we shouldn’t let any Catholic company run the ports”. That’s the logical leap you are taking, and what Terry and the others are calling you on.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pm“Nope. I probably wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t lump everyone that had that guy’s religion into one group and assume that I know everything about every single one of them.”
Your not getting the point. IT’S ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE FIGHTING GROUPS WITH THE SAME MINDSET. You can’t change a mindset easily, if at all.
“You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.”
Yes I am speaking in generalities, that is what you people seem to be missing. Your right, it’s not about a religion and I have tried over and over again to point that out. But you can’t remove the religious aspect from the point. You can’t say that if they all don’t have the same beliefs. Just that some interpret the beliefs differently. And some can be shifted from that belief based upon a situation. Just because one muslim kills a man does not mean that all muslims will kill a man. But if 100 muslims kill a man, then the concern is raised that “Muslims” in general may kill a man.
So yes there is generalizations, but it is not about a religion as you state.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#182, So far we have ‘preachy’, ‘uppity’ and ‘punk’ and some commentary about my background (which I don’t feel obliged to respond to). Otherwise I agree with you I mistrust Schumer likewise especially after his role in the Hackett knifing.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pmHere is the updated list of oreign Terrorist Organizations as of October 11, 2005.
Office of Counterterrorism
Washington, DC
October 11, 2005
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
Even in this latest updated list of FTOs, everything is alphabetical, excluding al Qaida and al Jihad. Why?
And now al Qaida is listed in 33 postion. Why?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pmI’ve got to go. Here’s the bottom line: American Foreign Policy is an American problem, not a Republican problem.
The people who want to change foreign policy are being squeezed out of the Democratic party. Shit, they won’t even back up Murtha.
And if that weren’t enough, this very “Progressive” website doesn’t even call out the Dems like they do the Republicans.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAnd now al Qaida is listed in 33 postion. Why?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 17, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Because alQaeda begins with a ‘Q’, and alJihad with a ‘J’ -’al’ just means ‘the’.
Kind of like saying ‘Lord of the Rings, The’
February 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#187, back in 1960, Kennedy was called on his catholicism (supposed allegiance to the Pope) as being a threat to national security, if my memory serves. The US got over that.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThat’s right, Terry. You can’t just waltz in here like Jackie O and not get some splatter. You’ve got a perfect world as your baseline and we’re not here to be shamed by you.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pmHurl an insult, sometime. Lighten up.
#190, it’s alphabetical – they are dropping the ‘al’ and going for the Q – although Al-Aksa is further up the list. I would hope that the State Department is smart enough not to issue a ‘league table’ for mass-killers like the FBI has its Top Ten. ‘Hey Osama, I’m coming to get your spot.’ ‘STFU, Zarqawi, you’re an amateur’. ‘Your mother’. ‘No, YOUR mother’.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#194, I’m here to confront fascists and I’m not as fat as Jackie O.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#194 – and I insult Adolf (I-R-I) whenever I can
February 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pmBut you can’t remove the religious aspect from the point.
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Yes, you can -in the same way the religious component can be removed from the conflict in the Ulster.
Religion provides a convenient excuse and/or handy rallying cry, but it is not the roor cause of the problem.
You can’t say that if they all don’t have the same beliefs. Just that some interpret the beliefs differently. And some can be shifted from that belief based upon a situation.
The same thing can be said about any religion. But if you pick a fight wit ha bunch of people who happen to belong to a certain Christian denomination, does it make all people from that denomination your enemies?
Just because one muslim kills a man does not mean that all muslims will kill a man. But if 100 muslims kill a man, then the concern is raised that “Muslims” in general may kill a man.
The same exact thing can be said about any religion. Christians in particular have argued over the ages the need to kill the body in order to save the soul. Does it raise the concern that all Christians are killers?
So yes there is generalizations, but it is not about a religion as you state.
You just contradicted all that you just stated.
The problem is with a country, not a religion -as Spudge pointed out.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pmRemovebush & Terry
You both post here on regular basis and add much to the discussion.
RemoveBush, from your numerous previous posts I know you are not a racist, but are a progressive.
Terry, from your posts I know you provide a unique prospective reminding us there is a large world out there that is not America. You too I believe are a progressive.
So come guys, disagree but tone it down a notch.
RemoveBush, you have stated that it is not all Muslims you distrust. I’m sure the Muslim Americans can be trusted by and large, so just focus on Muslim terrorists.
Terry, I’m sure you understand why American citizens are concerned with port security being placed upon a company that is owned by a country that has affirmed past alliances with terrorist entities. It seems unproductive when you both are progressives, but argue with vitriol against one another.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pm#198 – Well, you have your thoughts about the issue and I have mine. It’s not about a country completely.
People, you keep bringing up points that are not related to the same situation as the discussion.
“The same exact thing can be said about any religion. Christians in particular have argued over the ages the need to kill the body in order to save the soul. Does it raise the concern that all Christians are killers?”
If we were fighting a country, or countries, based on that religion the I would say the same thing. It does not matter if they are buddas, christians, muslims, what ever. If we are battling a organization who directly bases their attack on the premis of their religion then I say we need to use caution with any groups that represent that religion.
If a great dane attacks you for no reason, you are more than likely to be very cautious of other great danes. In fact, you would probably choose not to own a great dane immediately, or during the attack would you?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pmCitizen80203 – Great point. I just have a problem when people try to accuse me of something that I am not saying. I will defend that and try to present it in other perspectives, as I have.
Thanks for the input.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:57 pmWhat I would like to know is, who owns the P&O company? Is it a publicly held or privately held company? And what exactly does Bush and Co. stand to gain from this deal? Because they smell money, and their hands are out for their share of it. Otherwise, this deal would not be happening.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIf a great dane attacks you for no reason, you are more than likely to be very cautious of other great danes. In fact, you would probably choose not to own a great dane immediately, or during the attack would you?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Probably -but I would have to admit that response would be a tad irrational, as other Great Danes are absolutely not to blame.
True that Bin Laden and AlQaeda used their religion to justify their attacks on the US. But that justification was rejected by most Islamic scholars.
Again, the problem is a company -owned by a country with obvious ties to shady groups- running the seaport operation in the US. If the company had ties to, say, anti-Castro terrorist groups (the guys who blew up a Venezuelan commercial airplane in mid-air), I would be just as uneasy.
Actually, if you ask me, the problem is with the idea itself of outsourcing the operation, regardless of whatever religion their country of origin has.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pmHah ah ah aha
Sometimes it’s the simple sh!t eh?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#199, are you sure that we’re talking about port security here? I thought that the US Customs, DHS etc etc had responsibility for security over ports, irrespective of the operator. And are we expecting all the New York longshoremen to be sacked and replaced by vast hordes from the UAE overnight so that OBL can sneak in his Russian nuke?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI guess Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade gets to be in 3rd place because they got a dash in their name. and they capitolize the A in “Al”. : )
February 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWatch out, the next terror group is going to emerge from the Aardvark community – I’d start tapping their phones right away.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pmSometimes it’s the simple sh!t eh?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 17, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
It struck me too at first, then I remembered.
As for the Al-Aqsa Brigade, I can speculate that the other spelling is Al-Aksa, as Terry mentioned, and it would fit the alphabetical order quite nicely.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI’m not real clear how bushco is involved in this one. It seems like a straightforward takeover of a UK-listed company. If it wasn’t Dubai it was going to be Singapore.I’m not happy about it either as an ex-P & O employeee (& shareholder) which is being sold out for the benefit of the suits in London. But I’m not sure how you can blame Bush?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Probably -but I would have to admit that response would be a tad irrational, as other Great Danes are absolutely not to blame.”
It’s the concept of the discussion, not the actuality of the discussion. Of course other Great Danes would not be blamable for the attack against you. However, you certainly would have a bit of a concern that the same thing might happen.
The point is that though not all Great Danes are to blame, they provide a concern that you might suffer the same fate. You would not put your kid in the cage with a Great Dane until you had been provided some confidence level that that Great Dane was not the same as the one that attacked you.
So your fine with an Arab being rushed through an airport screen, while your stopped and searched? The Arab probably is just as innocent as you, but theres that possibility that he is not. Would it not be better to take the time to search him as well? In fact to search all Arab’s with a little more focus? This is wrong, but how else do you ensure the safety of Americans?
With your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US. After all, we can’t single out the people because of a few bad apples. Is that the protection you really want for the US?
I don’t want to see anyone screened more than another, but under the current situation I want all Arabs to be checked more than another race. This is not being out of touch, this is being realistic. If Arabs, or Muslims, are attacking our country then we should be more resistive to these people.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#209 – Because he is selling the port to the company. If the company was just buying out the existing company, I would still be concerned. However, this is a sell of something like 6.8 Billion dollars.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#209 – well, there was that Unocal/China issue a few months ago that the Administration blocked because of national security. If the issue is the same, then why no issue with this one? P&O is not an American company anyway, why was this not an issue before? I think this is demagoguery pure and simple.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pmSo your fine with an Arab being rushed through an airport screen, while your stopped and searched?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
You are beginning to sound a tad xenophobic.
The Arab probably is just as innocent as you, but theres that possibility that he is not. Would it not be better to take the time to search him as well? In fact to search all Arab’s with a little more focus?
Yes it would be better to search him, but the same goes for everyone else. How do you know that Irish guy in front of you does not have ties to terrorist goups? Or that Cuban behind you? Or that Basque in the other line?
Are you really advocating racial profiling?
This is wrong, but how else do you ensure the safety of Americans?
How about better intelligence? How about implementing some of the recommendations the 9/11 Commission issued?
With your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US. After all, we can’t single out the people because of a few bad apples. Is that the protection you really want for the US?
Oh, you really are advocating racial profiling… The problem with that approach is that as soon as the terrorist groups realise that’s the case, they will recruit people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds -Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla are two of such examples.
(…)I want all Arabs to be checked more than another race. This is not being out of touch, this is being realistic.
Racial profiling again. See my previous response.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmThe title of TP’s orignal post grossly overstates the scope of the story. The company in question, should the deal goes through, would take over A NUMBER OF FACILITIES in the ports mentioned, but in no way, shape, or form would they control or operate any port in its entirety.
For details see:
February 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmSorry for the missing link. Let me try again.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOK, if this works, just cut and paste into your browser:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/nyregion/17ports.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140207581-NvguwlTNzqOiw453EwlzMA
February 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWith your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US.
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
This is not my logic -I’ve never said that. It’s your logic, a strawman.
I am merely pointing out the huge logical leap you are making:
1.- AlQaeda are evil
2.- AlQaeda are Arabs/Muslims
3.- All Arabs/Muslims are evil
What I am saying is that I don’t think it’s a good idea for a foreign country to control the operation of any American seaports. Let alone one with ties to shady groups, regardless of their religion.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm“You are beginning to sound a tad xenophobic.”
Really, soldiers are dying everyday due to radicals of a religion that is suppose to be peacefull. Sorry that I care more about Americans than a radical bunch of people, whether they all are or not I certainly cant tell their intentions, can you?
“Yes it would be better to search him, but the same goes for everyone else. How do you know that Irish guy in front of you does not have ties to terrorist goups? Or that Cuban behind you? Or that Basque in the other line?
Are you really advocating racial profiling?”
Well if a black person robs a bank, do you expect the police to stop white people when trying to catch the robber? Let’s be real here. Use some logic in the situation, though it’s not right and ideally we don’t want to do this, we need to do this.
“How about better intelligence? How about implementing some of the recommendations the 9/11 Commission issued?”
OK, so in the mean time we just do nothing? See my previous reply.
“Oh, you really are advocating racial profiling… The problem with that approach is that as soon as the terrorist groups realise that’s the case, they will recruit people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds -Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla are two of such examples.”
And how many people would they be able to recruit? A handful. It’s not like now where we have MILLIONS to worry about, which only a handful may be a problem to begin with.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pm1. The Contras were terrorists in Nicaragua
February 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm2. The Contras were sponsored and armed by the US
3. The US is a terrorist nation….?
4. All Americans support terror…?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm211 – I’m trying to understand this. P & O is a British company and has been for 150 years. Over the years it has aquired lots of ports (over 100 I think). The sale was for 3.9 billion pounds and I don’t think the six US ports account for a lot of the revenue. The company has been struggling for a while and was easy pickings. I voted against the sale because I don’t believe in foreign companies owning local assets like ports. But BUSH is not selling it, the P & O shareholders are. And if Dubai had not bought it, Singapore would have. I don’t think you can pin this one on Bush.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm“Actually, if you ask me, the problem is with the idea itself of outsourcing the operation, regardless of whatever religion their country of origin has.”
Your just not listening……
Religion happens to be a key part of who these people are. It is what drives them. It is the only thing that drives them, so to say that their religion is not part of this is like saying America was not created because of Great Britan.
If this company was American based and was composed mostly of Muslims, I would have no problem with it. The problem is the Middle East Muslims which seem to be more ratical and have less respect for America, and rightfully so.
GEEZE!
February 17th, 2006 at 4:01 pmBut the company is now a British-owned company, the US ports are run by Americans and then it will be a Dubai-owned company, US ports STILL run by Americans. So what?
February 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm178
You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.
Thats like saying “SOME” of the southerners believed in slavery in the year 1800.
There is mass racism and relgious bigotry in the middle east because they didn’t go through what the west did which finally led to the seperation of church and state in America.
If christianity was as in control of peoples daily lives in America as islam is in the arab countries then things like the civil rights movement would never happen because they would declare it a sin against god therefore they have the right to put you to death …no water hoses or police dogs…just death. In a society like this KKK type hate is engrained into the daily lives of people from childhood on up. The arabs have all grown up hearing about Westerners attacking and using and abusing the arabs. They have heard about America and its unholy support of Israel. They have seem revolutions happen in their countries or their neighbors countries where American puppet leaders were removed. These people are not just your neighbor that happens to be muslim. They hate us because they were told to from childhood. Most probably are just as stupid as right wingers here in America and can’t even articulate why they hate Americans and Jews.
And you want to let the KKK be the guardians of the front door of America?
Just because you are against invading countries in illegal wars doesn’t mean you should be ignorant of what reality is. The Iraq war was not wrong because there are just a bunch of happy go lucky innocent arabs over there. The Iraq war was wrong because it violated what America is supposed to be about. There IS a problem we have with the arabs. And it is the same problem the blacks have had with the racists white here in America.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThe issue is that this opens a door for much easier access to organizations of the same religious groups. These extremist groups can possibly influence the owners to look the other way.
It’s a SECURITY CONCERN.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmDon’t you just love it when Bush ships your hard earned money out the door to some other nation. Lets keep our tax dollars at home by hiring American companies.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmShowman,
It all depends on what article you read.
Try this one:
Washington Post
February 12, 2006
United Arab Emirates Firm May Oversee 6 U.S. Ports
Boy that second part is rather telling, considering that two of the 19 highjackers were from the UAE and from my 9/11 commission post above, you can clearly see they helped fund the 9/11 attacks. Why are our attackers “allies.”
If 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis, why is Bush holding hands with King Abdullah?
February 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pmSounds like a new twist on the old protection racket.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOne interesting connection in this is the Texas A&M ’satellite’campus in the Dubai. The president of TAMU is Robert Gates -Ex CIA director- The College Station campus also houses the Bush ,Sr. presidential library which has custody of the junior bush’s governor’s papers. It’s a small world indeed …
February 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pmNo, they’re not in bed with the guys behind 911.
Why would anyone suspect that?
February 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pmThis is the Bushco scheme to rid America of all those pinko-commie liberal left wing blue state frenchified unAmerican unpatriots. Let the Arab terrorists nuke our ports. Simple, see?
February 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#3, Get a clue! Yes,Bush would! Get a damn clue! They were behind 9-11,plus he invited to his state of Union speech a KNOWN Saudi terrorist who the 9-11 victims families sued in court over involvement in 9-11!http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-32.htm
Part of the above is not true about one country who reconized Taliban as gov’t is because U.S. gov’t brought Taliban to power, like our gov’t brought to power Saddam,Noreigna and other ruthless dictators! Get a clue, YES he/they would! We need to put a stop to all this crap and now! Stop being sheep! Now Bush and evil cohorts are building “detention camps” for us protesters! Wake up sheep before it is too late! Then he calls our Constitution a “Goddamn piece of paper”! And wants to criminalize protesting him! He with the help of gutless aholes in Congress and sheep in our nation are turning him into the total dictator he wants to be! STOP THIS CRAP IMMEDIATELY! Demand immediate removal of the whole Bush regime and NOW! They are in bed with the terrorists! The sale of our ports PROVES IT! Those people are KNOWN terrorists! Defend our nation against the lying,murdering fascist Bush and evil PNAC group and regime and now before they totally bankrupt America and remove those in Congnress too who do NOT want to stand up for America,against these lying,murdering fascist aholes and now!
February 17th, 2006 at 6:50 pmSomeone explain to me how turning over control of our nations shipping ports does anything other than lift our skirts and show our ass to our enemy?
February 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmEven if you are dumb enough to believe that this does not pose us a security threat, it would seem any real American would be repulsed at the notion of awarding a huge financial contract to people who helped finance 911.
It slaps the face of every person who died at the Pentagon or in the Towers, or on Flight 93.
February 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmP&O controls ports both in the US and abroad (mostly the UK). It hasn’t been doing too hot and it is also a business that generates stable cashflow.
P&O, a UK company, accepted a bid from DPW after the counterpid from an arm of Temasek failed.
I’m sure no one here knows what Temasek is. Well, it just so happens to be an arm of the Government of Singapore. You know, the place where you get strung up for drugs. Yes, they hang you. They also make you get a permit to chew gum, have one free speech zone, still have laws against sodomy, etc.
So, the company would have been bought by either Dubai based DPW or Singapore based Temasek. Either of them are ’security threats’. Singapore is repressive, can’t protect it’s own waterways, etc. It’s also a US ally.
My point is that the other bidder is Temasek. If this deal got turned down DPW would likely sell the US assets on – but it might choose to walk away.
It might come as a shock to you, but I despise the secret process of the security approvals. The Congress needs to make at least a good portion of these hearings public. Its the secret nature of the process that makes people wonder, rightly.
I also would like P&O’s shareholders to get the best deal they can. If DPW assigned all American executives to the port with one guy from dubai, would that be all that big of a security threat?
The security threat is that only 1-2 percent of containers are checked. These containers are not checked by people like DPW, they are checked by the feds.
They also go through the radiation detectors that are notorious for going off when they shouldn’t.
Oh – Dubai has one up on Singapore. Instead of an auto death sentence for smuggling, you get a hell of a long time in prison.
You all should check out the property for sell in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The places on the artificial ‘palm leaf’ islands are wicked:)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 pmThis is no dream! This is really happening! (Mia Farrow in Rosemary’s Baby) Are we going to let them do it to us?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:16 pmMaybe we are as stupid as they think we are.
…Guess who’s guarding the ports?…
The United Arab Emirates!…
February 17th, 2006 at 11:35 pmWhat in the f**k is going on in Washington? Who is sleeping with whom? Bush is not a president for the people! He is a president for the wealthy! For anyone who can make him and his cronies richer! I am “fed” up! Get me outta here!
(lower case ‘p’ intentional, as was “fed” up!)
February 18th, 2006 at 8:38 amAre these knuckleheads so set on outsourc3es every concievable business we have in this country that they would consider out sources the ports as well?
Unbelievable.
February 18th, 2006 at 9:34 amI lived in the UAE for seven years, and find this to be sadly amusing. I would argue that the UAE is not a country with damning “ties” to terrorism, in spite of what’s been relisted here. But I agree that we should be leery of this contract.
The first thing you have to understand about the Emirates is that while their primary religion is Islam, Capitalism comes in a close second. They’ve always been about trade and commerce, and while this is a good thing, it sometimes creates questionable situations.
Cases in point:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
That’s right, they did. And they did not do this because they agreed with the Taliban’s hard line, but because they wanted to maintain good relations with the country. There are a lot of Afghanis in the UAE, working in one capacity or another, and they wanted to keep the money going. They even criticized them when it became apparent that they were going over the deep end (the buddha bombing)
When the Taliban was involved in 9/11, the UAE gave them no political, monetary or military support during America’s invasion. And when the new government was put into place, the UAE recognized it.
It’s all about the money.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
Has it now? Probably for the same reason as this…
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
and this
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Along with other middle-east banks, according to the letter. And that’s the real kicker, here.
The UAE is very much in-step with its neighbors in that there is little or no real oversight of the banks or ports – not where it counts, anyway. This is also all about the money, and perhaps security: no one will attack the place where they can move their goods and launder their money, and the UAE is known to be a smuggler’s paradise.
Again, it’s all about the money.
As for the banks – remember BCCI from the Iran-Contra Scandal? They were headquartered in Dubai. In fact, I was shocked to learn – maybe a year or two after I’d gotten to Dubai – that the bank I was set up with upon arrival, Union National Bank, was made out of BCCI’s remnants!
So I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about “terrorist” ties to the UAE (two of the 17? pfft!) Instead, spend more time wondering if this company is really on the ball, or if it’s going to be remote-operated by people who will let their friends and business partners “habibi” them out of following protocol, or obeying the law.
J
February 18th, 2006 at 9:35 am> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush #3
Your problem Autocratic Bushite…
…lies in your inability to think…
…which is EXACTLY what Bushiva and L’il Dick count on to carry out their treason and corruption…
…because faithful dogs like you “can’t believe”…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:09 amThe new Troll strategy: less inflammatory, regular names, denying being a wingnut, appearing moderate, not trying to derail the topic.
Message to RNC, your new strategy has been found out, in one day.
Message to
Comment by For Truth #77
Truth,
We all know that as bad as things are in Washington we can’t afford “moderation”…
…anybody talking that “let’s all just get along” (while Bushiva is still in office) sh*t is a Bushite!
…until ACCOUNTABILITY comes to Washington and the Bushites there should be NO PEACE, NO CIVILITY, and NO COMPROMISE!
Treason is a capital offense…
Bushites are traitors who hate America…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amDon’t know if this little tidbit has ben posted above but:
It appears the Indiana legislature is debating whether or not to lease their toll road to a foreign (Middle Eastern) entity as well…
…you can’t make this sh*t up…
…but worse, you can’t force feed this sh*t to the thinking public…
…any one still eating it, wants to…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:18 amSince Bush and Cheney are selling our ports to Arabs it is obvious that their “War on Terrorism” is 100% baloney! The Mexican border is wide open as well so another proof their war is a crock of crap! They want terrorism to thrive so they can use it to their advantage to remain in power forever!
February 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pmAs usual, follow the oil slick and the money, there you’ll find the criminal dealings of the right-wing. I just have to laugh at the right wing sub-humans that swallow this stinky load at every turn.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[...] Apparently, the Bush administration looks the other way for terrorists willing to give the United States money. They have now outsourced the operation of six of our country’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If approved, Dubai Ports World, managed by the UAE government, would control the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia for $6.8 billion. Here are some known facts about the UAE: – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. [...]
February 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThis contract is the Bush administration giveaway for their support for our future wars. No wonder Condi is traveling this week.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:28 pmThere are valid reasons to think this sale is a bad idea and object but most of you guys don’t seem to even know what you are posting about. Nobody is “outsourcing” port security or inviting terrorists in or making an oil deal or “selling” the ports. A company in the UAE closely tied to the government is buying a British company that already runs the operations management of many ports around the world including some large American ports. Its a business deal. Nobody has changed the rules, or the security processes (or lack of) or the actual ownership. Whine about globalism or international corporations or something but this one isn’t about the President. Trying to link him makes you look like a black helicopter chaser but I’m sure someone will follow this with an effort anyway.
February 18th, 2006 at 11:02 pm[...] – 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://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae [...]
February 18th, 2006 at 11:22 pmWTF is Osama Bin Laden? W says he has no recollection. BushCo Uber Alles! und Allah Akbar.
February 18th, 2006 at 11:45 pmThey are just tired of having to go before the public and having to say that, “no one could have seen this coming.”
Now, when a big attack originates at a major port, the administration will feel like they were more on top of it.
February 19th, 2006 at 3:34 amHOLY SNIKES !!!! I SURE DO WISH JESUS WOULD GET HERE!!!!
February 19th, 2006 at 7:49 amI can’t believe this story is just picking up steam now. Where were the Democrats even a week ago. So much for the Jews controlling the media. If Jews controlled the media, this deal would never have even got off the ground. I wonder how many Americans would vote for his deal if they could. I realize this is a result of capitalism, but maybe this is a wake-up call that curbs are needed. (I’m Canadian btw, but I’m not too far from the USA, physically or emotionally).
February 19th, 2006 at 9:35 amBush wants to sell off all our National Parks and forest lands to developers, so it just proves that George is a thug and a common swindler robbing the entire nation blind!
February 19th, 2006 at 9:47 amAmen, #244! Right on! They are using this bogus war on terrorism to erode our Constitution and destroy America from within while bankrupting U.S. for their OWN gains, while supporting KNOWN terrorists themselves! Like the one S.O.B. Jerk Bush invited to the State of the Union speech! DEMAND CONGRESS ARREST THEM ASAP! AND NOW! BEFORE THEY TOTALLY DESTROY OUR NATION! AND IMPEACH THEM AFTER THEY ARE ARRESTED! AND NO,NO MORE GODDAMN $$ FOR ANY OF THESE WARS THAT THEY STARTED OVER LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES, PERIOD! THEY LIED ABOUT WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN,AND LIED ABOUT CATCHING BIN LADEN AND LIED ABOUT WMD’S AND REST ON WAR ON IRAQ, AND NOW THEY LIE ABOUT IRAN! GET A CLUE FOLKS, THEY NEED CONTINOUS WARS TO SUPPRESS US HERE AT HOME!
February 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amGet a clue #238 and #239 and TO ALL YOU OTHERS! THIS IS BY DESIGN FOLKS! Him acting stupid and ALL THIS SHIT IS BY DESIGN! THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE TERRORISTS PEOPLE! THEY ARE BEHIND AND INVOLVED IN 9-11! Go to http://www.reopen911.org and READ SHEEP! Bush invited a KNOWN TERRORIST TO HIS STATE OF UNION SPEECH! Read artice: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-32.htm
WAKE UP YOU DUMB ASS SHEEP! THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE KNOWN TERRORISTS! THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT U.S.! OR OTHERS, JUST WAR PROFITEERING AND EMPIRE BUILDING AND THEIR GODDAMN INSANE PNAC PLANS FOR WORLD EMPIRE FOR OIL! GET A GODDAMN CLUE, PLEASE AND NOW? DEMAND THEIR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL BEFORE THEY TOTALLY DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN AND NO MORE $$ FOR THESE ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WARS! AND STOP HIM FROM BECOMING THE DICTATOR HE WANTS TO! He calls our Constitution a “Goddamn piece of paper!” Plus has said,”The enemy is ruling your country!” Now what does that tell you sheep!? GET A GODDAMN CLUE, THEY WERE BEHIND 9-11 AND ARE IN BED WITH TRUE TERRORISTS, WHILE TRYING TO GET OUR MINDS ON OTHER CRAP, LIKE CHENEY’S SHOOTING AND OTHER BUSHIT! NO MORE GODDAMN ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WARS OF AGRESSION!
February 19th, 2006 at 11:01 amYou have got to be kidding me!
February 19th, 2006 at 11:56 amHow logical is this. Is this Bush’s way of saying f*ck you to all Americans. We have people HERE in America who would love to serve there country and DO THESE JOBS>>>
OUTRAGE I SAY
REVOLT AGAINST THOSE OPPOSED TO OUR WELL BEING
WAKE UP AND SHOUT
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE DAMMIT
[...] Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff refused to explain why the administration has turned over control of operations at six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a country with dubious ties to international terrorism: The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI understand that the port authority of N.Y. / N.J. were not even given a chance to participate the bidding process.Whay the F*#* is going on.Could this really be away of destroying unions? What other possible reason could there be???
February 19th, 2006 at 4:57 pmRe: #105
Having just returned from working in a European Parliament, we shouldn’t avoid talking to Turkey, or other not-so-secular, not-so-democratic nations, but we should be cautious in our dealings.
You are perhaps the only person I have heard in years describe Turkey as cornerstone of secular democracy. I will admit, I cannot quite put into words how nervous this makes me.
February 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmIf Bush thinks this is such a good idea, why don’t he outsource the jobs of the Secret Service to the same company.
February 19th, 2006 at 7:09 pmIt is amusing reading the pin-head observations from the few ditto-head plants on this site.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:55 pmThe idea that Bush, Inc would sell operations over to a middle-eastern country with very strong links to international terrorism is consistent with this dishonest group of thieves. The so-called war on terrorism is largely a fraud, instigated by the global elites against resistence to thier ambitions of greed and more power.
It is embarrasing to see so many right-wing drones willing to allow the destruction of their freedoms at such hands.
P.T. Barnum was right!
T Cunningham said:
February 19th, 2006 at 9:40 pmP.T. Barnum was right!
P.T. Barnum said:
There’s a fool born every minute.
Right on T C!
[...] Some facts about the United Arab Emirates. – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 10:59 pmEven after having lived in the US for the last six years, I am often in such disbelief – at the “level” of ignorance in this country amongst it’s Citizens. Many of you have no clue on the countries that make up the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates is beautiful, modern, rich, peaceful, law abiding and sophisticated country, especially the Emirate of Dubai. I am of Indian origin and was born and raised in Dubai, came to the US to attend school. I grew up with Americans, British, Indians and Arabs in Dubai. Just because a misguided soul took part in 9/11 does not make all of UAE or Dubai a terrorist nation i.e. by the same token, Timothy Mcveigh did a horrible act – does that make all Americans Timothy Mcveighs? Please, dear American friends – do some research on Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, before trashing a country that aims to be amongst the best, safest and modern countries and cities in the world.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:54 pmI can not believe the news today. Bush gives the UAE power to 6 us ports. I thought I’d seen it all but obviously the stooges in washington found a way to become more internationally incompetent. The american people need to raise their voices more, it’s no wonder we’ve lost total control of this country and we have a greedy waterhead for a president. COME ON AMERICA!!! WE NEED TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!!! Remember we made the constitution to protect us from King George’s rule. We didn’t want the government to have total control over the people so we came up with the impeachment process, which was to give power to the real citizens of the country. We have a modern day King Geoerge and he lives in the whitehouse and kill’s more people every day than most dictators could imagine, and the sad thing is George Bush has Brainwashed this country into thinking what we’re doing is right. WE NEED TO IMPEACH NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!! Or maybe it is. the terrorists pretty much have free access to our ports. Thank you for your leadership Mr. president.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:59 pmIf you folks are truly interested to know more about Dubai, here are a few links ……
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/United_Arab_Emirates/West/Dubai/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_%28airline%29
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/dubaimain
February 20th, 2006 at 12:00 amResponse to Ryan Wall – the Six ports in the US, did not belong to the US. They were owned and operated by P&O – the British port and shipping company which was brought over by Dubai ports for US$6.8 billion. Dubai World ports are run by Europeans and the UAE citizens in Dubai. FYI – Emirates Airline is the airline of Dubai – they placed the largest aviation order in history with Boeing recently. It’s called global trade – as I am trying to reiterate, just because a city and country is Arab and is based in the Middle East DOES NOT MAKE IT a terrorist nation. I grew up in Dubai watching American shows from Days of our lives to Friends to Bold and the Beautiful to Starsky & Hutch to Star trek to Dallas to Beverly Hills 90210 to all you can imagine. Living in Dubai is like living in one of the safest and moder places in the world.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:09 amIt is now time to call for the IMPEACHMENT of GW Bush!
February 20th, 2006 at 12:48 amThe stereotypes are convenient for some who benefit from them.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:38 amThere are thugs in every culture. Planetary discontent is
painted as religious divisions when in fact it’s more to
do with economic divisions. We have more in common with
the hard working and vulnerable people of each society,
including Asian, Arabic and African nations, than
we have with the thugs within our own.
#258- Something Chertoff said in the quote triggered an alarm in my head. I am hoping someone can confirm my suspicion here. Didn’t George W. Bush appoint Chertoff’s wife to be the head of the Customs and Border Protection department? And the Senate was dragging their heels, due to questions about her qualifications for the post? And except for her connections, she had none? Her dad is a Military Man of high rank and close ties to Bushco, as well. Anyone remember? Thanks.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:44 amPresident Bush wants another 9/11 so that he can continue to scare the American public into conceding more and more of their civil liberties and he can gain more power. He knew about 9/11, why should this attack be any different?
February 20th, 2006 at 9:42 amThe links in the above comment do not necessarily correspond to the text they are linked to.
Although I am paranoid enough, I am not technically savvy…
February 20th, 2006 at 10:50 amResponse to all the above – are you guys even aware of the United Arab Emirates and the city of Dubai????
Please take a moment to read comments # 265, 267 and 268. They are not a terrorist nation. I cannot understand or comprehend, how most Americans instantly attach ANY country in the ME region with terrorism? How can people be so ignorant. If you head to Europe, Dubai and the UAE are well known amongst the Europeans. There are tonns of Europeans & Canadians in Dubai and Dubai is a tourist, shopping anf financial center in the Asia Pacific and ME region. UAE, especially Dubai is very British and has a strong American culture including Starbucks, Borders, IMAX theaters and even American Univeristies!!! Yes some monies were transfered via UAE banks to support 9/11 – by the same token INS issued visas to the 9/11 hi jackers i.e. security and proecdures need to be tightened up in every area to prevent and root out OBL and his croonies.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:09 pmAre we all like sheep being led to the slaughter?
February 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pm[...] This story is getting attention in both the liberal and conservatives blogospheres, as everyone is trying to figure out the ramifications of a deal whereby the United Arab Emirates would take over a $6.8 Billion dollar contract for US port security. Questioning the United Arab Emirates’ track record in the War on Terror, seven U.S. lawmakers said Thursday they want a committee led by Treasury Secretary John Snow to thoroughly review a deal that would let a UAE-based firm run six major U.S. ports. [...]
February 20th, 2006 at 1:16 pmROSHAN-
This has nothing to do with most of the people or the government of the UAE. Rather, like in the US, there are social and political elements which seem to be tied to larger plots within the US and around the world.
A quote from http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html:
“A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror” points to alleged “negotiations” between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment
Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment “negotiating with CIA”?
The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001. (See Alexandra Richard, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html ,”
I’m simply trying to point out that there is a long history of US government (especially CIA) collusion with certain members of the gov’t and private sectors in Dubai and the UAE in general. These seem to be part of a larger pattern of heavy-handed US policy in the ME region to secure cheap and reliable oil. I grew up in America doing all the things you described doing in Dubai but IN AMERICA, and I don’t trust elements of my federal government or military any further than I could throw them. This story would have drawn this sort of attention if the company had been based in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or even some European countries. Why are do these vital, national security duties need to be outsourced at all?
February 20th, 2006 at 1:34 pmIf the approval is unchallenged, Dubai Ports World would run the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.!!!! They already own half the oil in the world, we don’t need to give them immediate access to our home port!!! Write your elected officals and ask them to stop this insanity!!!
February 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pmARE WE OUT OF OUR MINDS?
February 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pmControl of the ports is a moot point. If terrorists want to deliver a bomb to New York, they just have to drop their bomb into an oil tanker, and then set the timer so it goes off when the ship first docks. The cargo doesn’t even have to be unloaded for the bomb to go off and cause massive damage. If you want port security, you have to inspect the cargo before it gets to America (e.g. when it is loaded onto the ship at its port of origin).
February 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pmThe real complaint I have is that this administration wants to offer a double standard on security. They are fighting for warrantless wiretaps (a violation of the Constitution), yet at the same time they are trying to turn control of points of access over to foreign states (regardless of religious affiliation). Do they really beliebe that the American public is that blind and dumb?
Dear “Not enough Paranoid” response to comment 278 – I do not think the article from Alexandra Richard, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html , you’ve referred to is correct. It has too many inconsistencies, for example, Emirates Airlines do not fly to Quetta in Pakistan (check out Emirates destinations in Pakistan at http://www.emirates.com/pk/index.asp
Number two – everyone in the UAE has heard about “OBL and his recoup at the American Hospital in Dubai” except all the doctors and nurses and the hospital management! It’s like some nasty rumor during 9/11 saying the Jews knew what was going to happen that day hence most of ‘em never showed up for work!!! I have heard of these silly stories on OBL and his recouping in Dubai, for heaven sake – there was no OBL recouping at ANY hospital in Dubai. How I know, because my best friend(a Canadian) his mom works there!
Also – the sic ports were owned and operated by P&O since 1999. PO&O is the oldest shipping company and they are British. And if you believe DP ports, a major company in the UAE, a country that strives to grow, paid US$6.8 billion to conduct terrorism in the US – then my friend I have no more words to change your blind belief/paranoia.
and as for “Devoted American” re: comments 279. UAE has 50% of global oil. FYI Dubai is out of oil – they have no more Oil. That is why the Emirate of Dubai is investing largely around the world on alternative economies and GDP. Yes the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi has oil. However the UAE is one country that is doing something progressive with the oil monies they have. You guys would know better if you travlled and worked there.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:41 pmHere is some reading material from CNN
“A port security expert, meanwhile, told CNN that fears that the agreement will reduce U.S. security are based on “bigotry” and that “shameless” politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.
Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council — which represents 70 percent of the world’s ocean shipping — told CNN, “This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard … is factually false.”
Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Petersen said DPW will be under “identical” security obligations, and said opposition to the purchase “comes down to bigotry [against] Arabs, which is one of the last acts of racism that is allowed by American society.”
Petersen said the company has an “exemplary” record of security compliance certification.
Michael Chertoff, Ridge’s successor as homeland security secretary, defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and the Pentagon.
“We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn’t a compromise to national security,” Chertoff said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
February 20th, 2006 at 5:56 pm“
[...] There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 20th, 2006 at 7:53 pmI think the American people need to wake up; we are not protected in this country, we are wide open to all. We are not equipt to handle even a natural disaster never mind another attack. Allowing Anyone, other than US citizens with strict background checks, to guard our ports is insane and seems to invite our enemies to have clear access to all of us.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:26 pmI continue to be amazed at the audacity of our leaders.
We should all take the time to write our congressman, senators and any officials who will listen and let them no that American citizens are not stupid, we have a voice and we should start using it.
Sue
I just reread my statement and saw that I spelled know wrong when calling us stupid! …………sue, embarassed
February 20th, 2006 at 8:30 pmConfused, bewildered? Follow the cash! Find out who’s getting paid and you will find the truth. These bastards don’t care a hoot about America!
February 20th, 2006 at 10:44 pmWe are about to see the ‘fall of Rome’ all over again. Something happened to Bush [a born dufuss] before he took office – what six yrs ago? Remember that 30 days he spent in Texas with leaders from around the world – I knew something was up [I'm a little psychic] at the time. America is about to fall folks – we need to do something fast, that is if we don’t want to end a good thing here. The Arabs are surrounding us here – have you been to Canada lately? Ottawa now has more Arabs living there than English. WE ARE BEING SURROUNDED – just as the Germans sacked Rome, we are about to be sacked. The enemy is moving all their ‘pawns’ into place. Gosh, where is Hilary when you really need her? Doesn’t sound half bad, now – does it? Hilary, I mean.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 amIf wire tapping is for the good of the country…. how about bringing back “Subliminal Messaging”. apply it to all forms of media… we can say it is a tool to teach our enemies the truth about our Real Goals. think of it everyone man woman child excepting all that is said as Truth, even thise horror stories and mistake that are made daily by our elected officials would just be a rain shower on a sunny day… Wow this is sounding like a “Utopia “. Never have to worry because our freinds in u.a.e. and the bin ladens and the bush regime are our friends, protectors, and providers of all that we need. Yeah Subliminal education… for all.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:46 am[...] ThinkProgress The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 amThis is just plain rediculious!!! I am a US serviceman and I am discusted by this administration and thier cronie policies. What happend to America!! Outsourcing is so demeaning to OUR country and I am very disappointed in the people of our nation who turn a blind eye to this evil act. GW needs to resign and apologize to all the family members of our dead service men and women who lost thier life for George Bush’s pocket book. GO BUSH!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 amIt amazes me that our ports were being run by a British company and noone complained. But when a company from the United Arab Emerirates buys that company and everyone freaks out! Face the racism people! This company has been vetted by DHS. They already run many ports overseas. Overseas port security is as important – maybe more important – than security here in the U.S.
Not every Arab is a terrorist. There are plenty of Arab companies operating in the world markets. Are Arab companies to be suspect in every case? The negative bipartisan reaction to this sale shows that it’s not only the GOP with a monopoly on racist attitudes.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:51 amOff topic:
If you don’t think bushco knew 9-11 was coming, and wanted it, to use as their own ‘pearl harbor event’, to help justify invading iraq, I think you may be wearing just slightly rose tinted glasses.
Call me a xenophobe, a tin hat wearer, a lefty whackjob, etc.
It just adds up that way to me.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:51 amLet’s face it, if we accepted the ideas of the American companies to outsource outside the U.S, then why it is hard for us to accept it inside. This is business; it has nothing to do with terrorism or religions. The UAE now, is one of the most profitable countries in the world (I know how you feels guys, but this is the truth).
February 21st, 2006 at 10:55 amI have an idea that Bushy Bush probally never thought of.
Lets contract out to N.Korea to guard our Nuclear Stockpile.
Oh yeh, no one got upset when the English were watching our
ports, HELLO, the British are supposed to be our Ally.
People, we are in a War here, this is like FDR renting out
Pearl Harbor to the Japanese in 1940.
Are Republicans so blind, not to see what is really going on here, Bush is slowly dismantling the U.S. of A. First our
February 21st, 2006 at 12:10 pmjobs, now our ports. Someday we might want to fight a war,only to find most of our parts will come from China.
Our soldiers get all their clothes from China,including their boots. Nice, really nice.
so, It’s OK to buy oil from the UAE, but leasing them dock space gets everyone in an uproar, why?
February 21st, 2006 at 12:33 pmIn addition to comment #297 – it’s also OK when Emirates the Airline from Dubai, placed the largest order with Boeing. The largest order Boeing ever had (see link below)but hell breaks loose when Dubai acquires 6 ports in the US – adding to the many they operate worldwide!!!! You guys need to research & understand the basic history of the Emirate of Dubai and the humble beginings of Dubai port, instead of spreading such blind hatred and paranoia.
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1132522887.html
February 21st, 2006 at 1:36 pmHomeland Security has installed radiation detection portals in most if not all U.S. ports.
P&O Ports moves millions of containers through the U.S., and they control the gates.
How easy would it be for someone (even just the worker bees)who has control of containers on both sides of the ocean to sneak something like a WMD into the country?
Easier than drugs I promise you.
The U.S. has given control of ALL the oil companies to foreigners and now several of the US’s major ports will be controlled by outsiders.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pmHere is some more reading from an Actual Tennis event in Dubai underway ……
http://www.dubaitennischampionships.com/tournament.htm
Below is Andre Agassi’s comment after playing in Dubai …. perhaps a successful American athelete’s comments can help most of you reflect better…..
“Although Agassi has struggled recently with injury and now chooses what events he will play in with care, the 35-year old American had no hesitation in booking his return flight to Dubai after reaching the semi-finals in his debut in 2005.
As he left last year, Agassi described the Dubai Tennis Championships as one of the most unique and pleasurable experiences of his tennis career.
“Dubai is something I would look forward to sharing with my wife and family,” he said. “It’s an incredible place to see and to visit for so many reasons. To see what they’ve built here is really a reflection of a lot of vision, a lot of passion, not to mention the cultures that live peacefully together. It’s the way the world is meant to be.”
February 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pmWow. Bush gives our ports to an ally of the Taliban and Osama, and the right-wing trolls applaud this?
Does Bush-worship rot the brain, or does the brain have to be rotten first for Bush-worship to be possible?
February 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pm[...] In a press briefing today, Secretary Rumsfeld revealed that he was not consulted about the decision to transfer operations of six key U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates, a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. 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? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 2:40 pmPHOENIX WOMAN – please read comments 275, 283 and 300. Perhaps you might be enlightened a bit from your current ignorant abode! The UAE is NOT AN ALLY of the Taliban or OBL – PLEASE stop spreading such stupid nonsense!!
February 21st, 2006 at 2:49 pm[...] “With all due respect to Mr. Chertoff,” O’Malley said. “He was also the Homeland Security secretary who went to sleep after he was informed the levees had broken in New Orleans.” And, thanks to Think Progress, here’s the UAE’s record on terrorism: [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 2:53 pmAfter thinking about this a little more, I think that it would be a mistake to turn control of any US port to ANY foreign government. It’s kind of like Penny’s and Walmart inviting Sears to run their stores. Whose interest do you think Sears would look out for first?
No foreign control of our ports… period.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pmThere is a very old maxim that says “all that glitters are not gold”. In the face of the persistent and imminent danger of Islamic terrorism facing America, and the sheer lethality of one terrorist act in a free society, globalization may hold more peril than profit for America in circumstances such as this.
Clearly, the issue is not with Dubai as a nation, nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that Dubai is an Islamic nation, where Islamist that seek to harm or destroy America, or those that support them abound. One cannot be too careful in the face of a certain danger posed by a certain enemy, especially an enemy within – America or Dubai.
America is already struggling with securing her ports and everyone knows the enormous challenges involved with adequately securing those ports. There are inherent and persistent risk factors associated with these ports, those risk factors will undoubtedly increase if this deal is allowed to go through. For one thing, Americans will feel less secure, even it is only perceptively. And worry has its costs.
It is unwise to walk into a dangerous situation, just because your friend says it is OK. In the least, our leaders will do well to hearken to Ben Franklin’s admonition, “Love your neighbor; yet don’t pull down your hedge.”
February 21st, 2006 at 3:30 pmSo Slow train – America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists” dissappear???
British P&O company operated the ports, now they have been taken over by DP World. Britain has lots of Islamists, so does France, Germany and Singapore – which is an Islamists country as well. What do you recommend, the US stop trade with all these nations? I can’t believe what I am reading on this site!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pmBe more honest and accurate, The Administration had nothing to do with “Outsourching” anything, the Brits were already running these ports and their company was bought out by a UAE company, all the US did was review their deal.
Rejecting the deal based only on the fact that they are Arab is racist and illegal, the Democrats would’ve been the first to tell you that too!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:03 pmThank you Mr Maxwell! After reading 95% of the comments in this section I was starting to believe the worst…. Let me say this, being born, raised in the UAE and educated in North America, I always believed if there is any place, where dissent is welcome, where the truth stands the best chance to come out in the open – it has always been the US. No patronizing here, however this is what I believe today.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pm[...] Grassroots opposition to the Dubai Ports deal is coming from left, right and all quarters. Bush really stepped in it this time and assorted politicos, smelling blood in the water, seem to be rising to the occasion. Maybe they’ll succeed in this instance, and maybe not. The Bush admin may be forced to retreat on this if the corruption angle to the story grows media legs. Let’s look at the big picture, though… [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmThe ports were already outsourced to a British company. They load and unload the containers from ships that were loaded at foreign ports, some already controlled by the UAE company. It remains the responsibility of the USA to control the security of our ports.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pmBut when a company from the United Arab Emerirates buys that company and everyone freaks out! Face the racism people!
No, it’s the United Arab Emirates that’s freaking everyone out. Face the monarchy wingnuts!
Me? I spit on kings. Like any real American. Frango Regna suckers!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmI am ashamed to be an American.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmI am ashamed to be an American.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmI am ashamed to be an American this day.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pm[...] How quickly we forget Señor Bush. The UAE is a two-faced country like Saudi Arabia. It’s time, for once, to listen to not only the American people, but your own Congress. Read more here: Bush backs transfer of ports to Dubai firm – U.S. Security – MSNBC.com [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm[...] Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking. But unless the GOP wants to run this year as the party that outsourced Homeland Security to a nation that supported the Taliban, a nuclear Iran, North Korea and Lybia, and provided a financial conduit to the 9/11 hijackers, they better back this train (or boat) up mighty quickly. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm“I really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006″
LOL, your Rush to dismiss this and change the subject are I suppose typical Republican spin, reviewing your posts it continues. I assume “Authoritarian” in your name refers to your prefered form of government? If we can trust foreigners to protect our ports, I’m sure we can trust them to command our armies, run our power plants, etc. Its not that I am against the UAE, I just don’t have reason to trust them or any other foreigners to protect me. Where is their vested intrest? The real question is why is Bush willing to use a veto to get the bill through, just stubborness (staying the course)? Not sure why the port security was outsourced to begin with, but perhaps its time to buy it back.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pmTo not have immediate and deep concerns for this situation and the possible backlash that could result from it likens some to those who believe that until a crime (as defined by law) is actually committed, there’s nothing that can be done.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pmThis is far to big a decision to accept lightly, and should be scrutinized by all sides. And until EVERYONE’s fear is laid to rest, this deal should NOT GO THROUGH!!
Just when you think that the inefficiency and corruption of the Bush Administration can get no worse, something like this comes to light. You can bet the cost of your mother’s cancer surgery that somewhere down the line someone who poured big bucks into the RNC or Bush’s campaign stands to make a bundle on this. Sure makes you wish that our Swift Boat Captain were at the helm, doesn’t it?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:55 pmAdditional information from the New York Times:
February 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pm“In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company’s operations in Europe and Latin America.”
Yeah, nothing really changed. The Republicans probably scripted this ahead of time as a PR stunt: Bush throws out a boner so that the shocked populace will see the republicans shoot it down and look like they really do care about “security” and Joe union worker.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:36 pmOf course, follow the money…what stake does THE CARLYLE GROUP have in the DP WORLD?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:47 pmThe thing that doesn’t make sense here is this…Why does Bush feel so strongly about this deal going through that he would use his only VETO to date to fight it?
Another possible avenue here. BUSH does not have to worry about being re-elected, but the Republican Congress is running scared regarding the 2006 elections. This is great timing, and this finally gives them something to try and get some credibility back with, and take everyones mind off of their multitude of woes. This is averting everyones attention away from all the other crap this Administration is in hot water over, as well as the Republican Congress.
[...] The issue here is simple, The United States should not allow a country with known connections to terrorists at war with America to be in charge of security at 6 major ports. End of story, no Arabs and Brits included. [link] [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 8:08 pmWhen in doubt, trust bush, right you stupid republicans?
February 21st, 2006 at 8:10 pmWe Americans are losing our sense of fear of “terror” and are becoming more afraid of Bush than Bin Laden. We’re getting numb from the same old Bush/Republican fear based “terror” rhetoric. Bush giving up control of our ports to Bin Laden’s cousins will provide excellent opportunities for future terrorist attacks upon the US. Bush needs Pearl Harbor III, 9/11 being the second, to keep all of us living in fear of the “Arab boogey man.” This time Bush can blame the terrorist attacks upon Iranians that will supposedly infiltrate the Arab controlled ports. Then he can justify invading Iran, like Iraq, under the premise that Iran has WMD’s like Iraq supposedly had. Its all part of the Neo-con(Nazi) Republican master plan called the “Project for the New American Century.” But for those of you faithful “house negro” wanna be Neo-con Republicans that still “don’t think” Bush and his cronies are selling your country down the river, just remember to look in the mirror when your American legacy is flushed down the toilet. You made your bed, now you and your children and your children’s children will be sleeping in it. But look on the bright side, you Right Wing Fundamentalists are looking forward to the “rapture” so you should be proud of yourselves for accelerating the process.
> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:07 am
You’re right about one thing AR, you certainly “don’t think.” And your blind ignorance is certainly showing.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:15 pmNow, doesn’t this make Michael Moore more a prophet than a wacko Hollywood lefty? What else will be revealed?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:24 pmTo Quote a part from a great movie “is there no end to the mans hypocracy”
February 21st, 2006 at 11:10 pm[...] “After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, “I’ll deal with it with a veto.” “Careful review”. The White House has also claimed that there was a rigorous national security review of the deal. 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. Yet Rumsfeld has just admitted that he had no clue what this deal was about and that he wasn’t consulted. 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? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 11:12 pm[...] Greenwald’s question is thought-provoking and the comments section does raise some good issues, but ultimately there are very serious and legitimate concerns about the United Arab Emirates that do not deserve to be lumped into the racist blatherings of war bloggers. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pmI find it unbelievable that there are people who still defend Bush; or believe him. I can’t even take them serious any more. I have learned that when Bush makes a speech or tries to placate the American people ie; the speech after Katrina, he does exactly the opposite. So, when he says he will do something (like new energy inititives) run for the hills..
February 21st, 2006 at 11:37 pmWho were those terrorists again? (none / 0)
All this hullaballoo is predicated by the idea that guys from the middle east are associated with terrorism. Where does that idea come from? Cartoon aftermath? We were never attacked by bad guys from the middle east. You’re all playing Rove’s game. I feel sorry for the suckers who still believe that 911 had anything to do with Qaeda. Please do your homework.
Bush/Rove as usual are just showing off to all of us what they can get away with, much like they did with openly admitting to spying on us illegally. Of course they were hugely encouraged by having gotten away with 911. Since they consider themselves beyond any law they need a mechanism to mark the boundaries of their power. This is the way they make their operating procedures ‘official’. Next thing is that they Nuke Iran, provoking word wide outrage. And they will keep Nuking!. They will keep flaunting their Crimes and getting away with it marking new boundaries of ‘acceptable’ criminal behavior.
b
February 21st, 2006 at 11:53 pmImpeach Bush
February 21st, 2006 at 11:56 pmOk I have tried to stay on Bushes side but this is enough. This man is obviously an IDIOT. Sell out our country. He has got to be making money in this deal beacuse it is INSANE.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 amIt is funny ynow to go back and see “Authoritarian Rush” talking about how this story was dead on Feb. 17th. Wonder how dead Bill Frist thinks it is.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 am[...] It seems the President’s lax stance on our ports being patrolled by a country who’s banking system transferred money to 9/11 hijackers and then refused to cooperate in tracking down Osama’s banking records has finally brought people of all political backgrounds together. New York Gov. George Pataki, New Jersey Gov. John Corzine, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., Rep. Vito Fossella, Senators Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton have all sounded calls against this ridiculous situation. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 am“I really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006″
Republicans may be unethetical lying sociopaths but at least they’re consistent. Notice the tactic of constantly introducing irrelevent information in order to appear knowledgeable while avoiding discussing the real issue: Bush selling America…meanwhile the Republican lacky attempts to discredit critical thinking by labeling it as “hysteria.” Bravo Authoritarian Rush, you’re a chip off the old Republican propaganda block. Your attempts to “confuse” us are quite effective. Another 9-11 and we might actually be believers again. Your masters will reward you well!
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 amYou’re wrong. You’ve been on this site for this long and you still haven’t gotten the message about he who controls the message?
UAE is an American ally.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Bush was allies with Noriega
Bush was allies with Saddam
Bush was allies with Bin Laden
Bush is allied with the UAE
You’re allied with Bush
Now all you need is a bumper sticker on your car that reads, “I’m with stupid.”
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:29 am[...] It’s frustrating that it took Bush turning the operation of our ports over to a possibly hostile foreign country to demonstrate this administration’s incompetence and greed to those who have in the past defended his recklessness, but hopefully now we can have a national dialogue about domestic security, as opposed to abstract security gained through action taken 10,000 miles away from our border. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 amU.A.e. is not gonna run these port. some company or tribe or familt is…..what is the controlling familys name???how have what other interests do they have ??? is there a chance of a conflict of interest? how much American government aide or Cash will be given them to Bring these ports up to “homeland security” standard? I just smell a Bechtel type arrangmentsimiliar to the Iraq deal. What is really curious is Why no other corporation has stepped up for this “concession” We have been bombarded with cost and our rights have been sacrificed in the name of “Security” , yet our leaders sing the chorus” Move on people nothing to see hear.” I feel like rip van winkle when did we becom a 2 branch government? final note,if they are indeed our allies show what they done… I mean being one of the richest countries and all in the world scheme of things how much has they given. come on bush regime it’s show and tell time… well it should be anyway.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 amBush was wrong about WMD’s In Iraq -
He got a lot of people killed. Several hundreds and thousands are dead.
Bush was wrong about Katerina, telling us that he had no idea that the levees would collapse -
Over a thousand are dead. & many homeless.Loss of a major historical city.
Are we expected to believe this Presidents assurences?
Are we willing to risk our children, our loved ones ourselves by believing President Bush- or his spoksperson assurences? (Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff!!!)
IF an attack happens and its through our ports…Is Bush going to do a skit?..searching under his desk for cargo containers ?
Or Will he tell us that he recieved ‘faulty information’ regarding the security?
Bush will move on—We will count our dead brothers and sisters.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:29 amI truly wonder if Charles Schumer would create all this noise if the purchasing company was from Israel? I am also pretty damn sure, anyone raising a voice on a deal against an Israeli company would be automatically slammed – anti semitic. It is really sad, how feeding the “Arab Boogey man” paranoia to average Americans how now come back to bite Bush and company in the butt, when this time – a legit and successful Arab country and company are trying to make a business purchase that too, investing heavily (US$6.8 billion) and all most “ignorant” Americans can think of is anti-bush sentiments, war in Iraq (comapring Iraq to the UAE is like comparing the English & French) and port security and 9/11. I mean yeah sure, a company and country which had humble beginings 30 years ago, is investing us$6.8 billion to conduct terrorism in the US – just unbelieveable, what paranoia and ignorance can do to average Americans.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:45 amI can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps. This is a corporate sale. If we were worried about these ports they wouldn’t have been turned over to a British corporation to begin with. Great Britain probably has more fanatical Muslims then most Muslim countries. I think that this corporate sale, which is for leasing the operations of 6 US ports of various lengths of time is probably the best move possible. This Dubai company is going to place more emphasis on security and positive oversight of their operations than any other company would have, under the same conditions. If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again. They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back. With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders, I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports. I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:12 amThank you Steve, you make perfect sense – wish the rest can see that.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:23 amNow you’re getting preachy, Terry.
I’m just mad a Schumer.
He knows this port situation does not make America less safe.
Schumer is fear mongering for political gain.
Which is unrelated to my views about foreign policy.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
Republican puppets, like their oil billionaire masters, are mad at anyone who challenges their profit making schemes. Why dont you cut the strings Pinochio, your nose is so long you could use it as a kick stand. Bush and his cronies, namely the oil industry, made record profits on the backs of the American people in 2005. Now they’re shooting for record profits in ‘06 with the outsourcing of Amerian Ports. Lower taxes won’t matter if your job is outsourced. Republican supporters are foolish enough to believe they’ll get a piece of the pie if they remain loyal to their greed driven masters. You may be loyal to them, but they sure as heck aren’t loyal to you Pinochio. Just wait til your job is outsourced. You’ll be standing in line asking the Americans you betrayed to bail you out.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:30 amYou’re welcome Roshan. The point I am trying to make as a White, Male, Republican, Business owner is that this is the BS that we allow ourselves to a quick jump on and off of a bandwagon. We never focus our concerns on the real issues. Security is not the responsibility of the leasing operations of the ports. The companies MUST follow all local, state and federal regulations. The regulations should be written in stone. But, we know that for the right price some US worker will circumvent the rules for personal gain. Some underpaid TSA worker will not read a scan properly, an overworked, underpaid policeman will not pull over a suspicious vehicle. Let’s look internally first, right our wrongs, then preach to the choir. And if we don’t want foreign investment into our economy, look back to isolationist practices at the beginning of last century, they didn’t help us much.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:50 amI can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps. This is a corporate sale. If we were worried about these ports they wouldn’t have been turned over to a British corporation to begin with. Great Britain probably has more fanatical Muslims then most Muslim countries. I think that this corporate sale, which is for leasing the operations of 6 US ports of various lengths of time is probably the best move possible. This Dubai company is going to place more emphasis on security and positive oversight of their operations than any other company would have, under the same conditions. If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again. They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back. With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders, I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports. I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Nice Spin Job Steve!
“I can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps.”
You must be refering to the bleeting of Republicans concerned about their bottom line.
“This is a corporate sale.”
As is every Republican action.
“If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again.”
How about $7 Billion simply leaving the hands of Americans?
“They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back.”
They could have just placed the money directly into the hands of Americans where it belongs.
“With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders,”
Dont you mean the complacent nature of the Bush Administration and Haliburton?
“I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports.”
Don’t you mean foreign owned corporations can provide cheaper labor because Americans won’t work for slave wages?
“I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.”
Indeed it is having a negative impact. This adminstration is orchestrating the outsourcing of American contracts to low bidding foreign governments that provide cheaper labor. This practice is taking jobs away from Americans and destroying their families.
Steve, the best thing that could possibly happen is for you to have your job outsourced. Then perhaps you’d be able to empathize with your fellow Americans. But that wont happen because no foreigner likes Bush enough to take your job of kissing his ass away from you. At least you found your niche…the last secure job in America.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 amDear Outsourced profit – I am a Democrat, however did not vote the last election, simply because I truly believe this country can do better and deserves better. Leaving aside all the political emotions for a moment – could you please take a moment and think on few of your phrases – ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other. You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation. Please do not simply shout everything is being outsourced out of America – also look at what is being acquired from other countries. One more thing – I cannot understand what is the issue with a government owned company, which had humble beginnings 30 years ago and now is a world player. Dubai Ports operates several ports in several countries across the globe. Again if you take sometime and understand the background of the UAE and Dubai, it might help – for example, UAE has a population of just about 4 million, of which less than 20% are citizens and the remaining foreigners – the UAE government owns most of the businesses in Dubai because of the oil monies it acquired when it had oil. The economy is a mix of ruling family business blended with capitalisim. Although DP world is government owned, most of the “brains†and “decision makers†are expatriates such as the British and UAE citizens. The government only funds the company. Dubai is almost out of oil – and now it is trying to establish alternate economies and GDP by venturing into other businesses. Emirates Airline is owned by the Dubai government – and look what they have done with Emirates an Airline which started only 20 years ago – is amongst the top three most profitable and best airlines in the world. This is why I say – I cannot understand all the “Paranoia†when Dubai government funded but not managed DP world is adding the 6 ports in the US in addition to all the other ports they operate all over the world. What is the fear or concern here???
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 amBelow are some CORRECT Q&A’s for those who care to read and for those who CARE TO KEEP POLITICS ASIDE:
Q: What is Dubai Ports World?
A: Dubai Ports World is a port operator owned by the United Arab Emirates, a tiny, oil-rich Persian Gulf nation. The company is taking over the management rights to some terminals at six U.S. ports. The UAE, which borders Saudi Arabia, is considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. In 2004, it became the first Arab country in the Middle East to join a Homeland Security Department program that screens high-risk cargo headed for U.S. ports.
Q: How is the company getting the rights?
A: Dubai Ports World is in the process of acquiring the London-based company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly known as P&O, which operates the six ports. Companies from several foreign countries, including Singapore and Denmark, run operations at U.S. ports. Officials from the Treasury and Homeland Security departments said Tuesday that they did not know whether the Dubai deal was the first with a Middle Eastern country.
Q: What is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and why did it back the deal?
A: The committee is composed of 12 government agencies, including the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State departments. Its work is mostly classified, but it reviewed the terms of the deal, and members voted to support it. Clay Lowery of the Treasury Department said members consulted with intelligence officials and gave the matter “extra care” in the approval process. “These guys have built up a track record … that has been fairly solid,” he said of Dubai Ports World.
Q: Whowill control security?
A: The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, all part of the Homeland Security Department, would continue to control security at the six ports as they do now at all U.S. ports. Department policy chief Stewart Baker said the company would be required to participate in all government security programs, and the Coast Guard is now conducting baseline security inspections of all the operations Dubai Ports World would control.
Q: How many terminals will Dubai Ports World run?
A: The company bought the rights to operate up to 30% of the terminals at each of the six ports. In Baltimore, for example, the company would operate only two of 14 terminals.
Q: How do Homeland Security inspectors feel about the deal?
A: They’re against it. “We strongly feel port operations should be handled domestically,” said Charles Showalter, president of the union that represents the Customs and Border Protection agents who inspect ships as they enter U.S. ports
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:07 amNice rant outsource. How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we. When Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, nothing from you again.. By the way, this should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 amDear Outsourced profit – I am a Democrat, however did not vote the last election, simply because I truly believe this country can do better and deserves better. Leaving aside all the political emotions for a moment – could you please take a moment and think on few of your phrases – ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other. You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation. Please do not simply shout everything is being outsourced out of America – also look at what is being acquired from other countries. One more thing – I cannot understand what is the issue with a government owned company, which had humble beginnings 30 years ago and now is a world player. Dubai Ports operates several ports in several countries across the globe. Again if you take sometime and understand the background of the UAE and Dubai, it might help – for example, UAE has a population of just about 4 million, of which less than 20% are citizens and the remaining foreigners – the UAE government owns most of the businesses in Dubai because of the oil monies it acquired when it had oil. The economy is a mix of ruling family business blended with capitalisim. Although DP world is government owned, most of the “brains†and “decision makers†are expatriates such as the British and UAE citizens. The government only funds the company. Dubai is almost out of oil – and now it is trying to establish alternate economies and GDP by venturing into other businesses. Emirates Airline is owned by the Dubai government – and look what they have done with Emirates an Airline which started only 20 years ago – is amongst the top three most profitable and best airlines in the world. This is why I say – I cannot understand all the “Paranoia†when Dubai government funded but not managed DP world is adding the 6 ports in the US in addition to all the other ports they operate all over the world. What is the fear or concern here???
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 10:41 am
“I am a Democrat”
You sound more like a lying Republican attempting to pass himself off as a Democrat to gain some shred of credibility to me. Its obvious Republicans have none, thats why you aren’t calling yourself one.
“ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other.”
I dont watch CNN or FOX because I prefer unscripted, unbiased journalism, the kind not controlled by Republican special interest. You sound like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly or some other such Republican media puppet.
“You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation.”
Ok lets talk “in equation”. I was working for Hewlett Packard right before it outsourced half it’s jobs to Mexico after NAFTA. I’m not some Republican puppet talking out of my ass that has never seen hard times or experienced the impact of outsourcing first hand. As for the piddly amount of jobs American CEO’s occupy overseas to supervise the slave labor in third world countries…you call that balanced? Are you trying to tell me that a handful of CEO’s that run foreign companies offsets the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of American jobs being outsourced daily? You need to go back to school because your math sucks. And I don’t believe a goddamned thing you’re saying or any of your pro CEO pro Republican propaganda. Jobs are outsourced because corporations dont want to pay Americans standard of living wages. Outsourcing isn’t about some UAE mercy mission. What a crock of crap. And don’t insult anyone’s intelligence again by calling yourself a Democrat. You are opposed to everything Democrats and Americans stand for. Do us all a favor and go outsource yourself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 amNice rant outsource. How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we. When Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, nothing from you again.. By the way, this should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 11:31 am
“Nice rant outsource.”
Nice impression of a sociopath Steve.
“How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we.”
Actually I was raising hell bigtime. I didn’t vote for Clinton specifically because he, like Bush sr, supported NAFTA. But you didn’t hear me because you were too busy swallowing Republican propaganda Lewinsky style.
“You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.”
Actually I’m quite employed and I intend to stay that way. Thats why I’m speaking out about any American job that was or is in the process of being outsourced. You obviously have a secure job spewing anti union, anti American, anti worker, anti family, pro Bush, pro corporation, pro slavery propaganda, . I’m pointing my finger right at you and the people you support. Now, please do us all a favor and go outsource yourself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 amI can’t understand why any company from any other country is running our ports. Why are American owned companies not running them? How long before our airports are turned over to foreign companies?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pmHmmm…
Let’s see, we are going to withhold funds from Hamas and the Palestinians (even humanitarian aid) after a democratic election in part because they don’t/won’t recognize Israel.
and
We are going to reward the UAE (who also won’t recognise Israel) by turning over management of 6 major East coast ports to a corporate entity of Taliban sympatizing despotic sheik..
Hmmm…
Why, nothing to ’see’ here…move along…NOW !!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pmOh my god – Outsourced profit, why all this hate and animosity??. I am sorry, things have been bad because of senior management actions at HP. But my two cents is NOT towards any politcal parties – please I could care less!
I am someone who was born and raised in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. I moved to North America for school and work as a CPA in NYC. I am a Democrat. I did not vote on election day – simply because I believe this country deserves better and can do better. And oh, I do not make political contributions to any party – instead support homeless peoples in US and Canada with the little extra monies I have. I would urge you to research a bit about the UAE, specially on the Emirate of Dubai. When my parents moved to Dubai in 1969, the country was stil under British occupation and Dubai Port was nothing but a tiny island with a few boats. What this country and the Emirate of Dubai has achieved from then on is nothing short of amazing. Yes I am aware monies were transferred from Dubai banks to fund 9/11 – however there were alsom monies transfered from Germany, from the UK and several other countries using American banks! Hell the INS issued Visas to these hijackers. Yes two of the misguided souls from 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens, by the same token Timothy Mcveigh an American committed a horrible act – does that make all Americans evil? I don’t care much about the business aspect of this deal, however what worries me is the fact, Americans inadvertently and unknowingly are driving away true countries that aspire to be like the US someday. FYI – Emirates Airline, placed the largest aviation order with Boeing, inspite of tough competition from Airbus. Emirates, could have easily chosen Airbus over Boeing – meaning lesser American jobs for Boeing – correct? And Boeing, has no huge manufacturing facility or plant that employees UAE citizens in Dubai. My point is companies and countries that invest heavily (DP world in investing US$6.8 billion) to conduct busineses worldwide is doing it with the most honest business and security intentions. I have so many friends in the UAE, some are Americans, some Canadians, some British, Arabs and Asians, and they all live in harmony – it’s not perfect, but one is not “ignorant†of the others background.
Here are some links to Dubai, hope you all take sometime to review and understand some aspects of the UAE and Dubai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
http://www.dubai.com/
http://www.trekearth.com
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pmDear Ken Tucker – The Israel Palestinian issue is far more complicated. It is unfortunate that you bring up this issue to DP World discussion. UAE is a tiny country that exists in the Middle East. They have to, by choice or otherwise, go with the flow and strong sentiments that prevails in most of the Arab world. Yes most Arabs dislike Israel for occupying Palestine and for the in human conditions Palestian people live thru. I also agree most Arab goverments are not doing enough to ease the Palestinian peoples misery – and believe me most of the Arab governments can do a lot! This is to an extent, besides the point. Let’s face it, would you or Charles Schumer raise all this voice if Israel were to purchase P&O instead of Dubai Ports world?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 pmNice two-faced action. it’s alright for you to disagree with your party affiliation, but still be a proud Democrat, but damn those Republicans,they’re never right.
By the way, isn’t outsourcing the way that companies always lost business in a competitive bid situation? Or is this your new word for being screwed over. That’s right the Republicans did it.
Union, great concept in the previous century, obsolete concept of protecting seniority and not placing protection for workers who go above and beyond today. More interested in keeping the union higher ups in money and increasing that lobbyist money flowing from the Health, Welfare and Pension fund than worrying about whats best for the workforce ie flexibility, cross-training, etc.
Anti-American, Anti-Worker, Anti-Family–NEVER. Greatest country in the world, with opportunities never before seen anywhere. But we still need to improve the poverty stricken and senior citizens of our country with better options.
Pro Bush, No, Republican.
Pro Corporation-Pro slavery, BS. You can’t have it both ways. We are now competing in a world wide market. We have the resources, the manpower, the knowledge and the finacial backing to succeed, but we seem to be more interested in taking the poor me attitude. So take your finger and place it where it does you the best.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm“Oh my god – Outsourced profit, why all this hate and animosity??. I am sorry, things have been bad because of senior management actions at HP. But my two cents is NOT towards any politcal parties – please I could care less!
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Watching the current administration sell the legacy of the American people down the drain doesn’t exactly inspire happy thoughts. You may not claim to be a Republican but you appear to share many of their views and their agenda so why not make it official by realizing which side you’re on. Political parties recieve tremendous amounts of money from special interest groups like Haliburton or the UAE for example. Those special interest groups influence decisions made by politicians, like outsourcing the control of US shipping Ports and American jobs to foreign countries. I appreciate the fact that your loyalties are with UAE, but the last time I checked, the UAE isn’t putting food on American tables. So if the UAE is receiving money Americans should be receiving for what occurs on American Soil, I have to disagree with that practice. We have plenty of Americans here that need those jobs operating US ports.
“Nice two-faced action. it’s alright for you to disagree with your party affiliation, but still be a proud Democrat, but damn those Republicans,they’re never right.”
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Steve, unlike you, I don’t blindly follow my political party. I know thats whats expected of good little brown shirt Republicans but Democrats are prone to much more critical thinking, especially of those that claim to be Democrats and certainly those occupying the executive office. As far as Republicans being right goes, they haven’t been right since Lincoln was in office. As soon as he was out of the way, the Republican party got bought out by the railroads and anyone else that came along thereafter. The 9/11 commission revealed that Bush knew about 9/11 before hand, he’s had business dealingss with known terrorists for years, he wasn’t right about WMD’s in Iraq, he still hasn’t captured OSAMA, he lied about spying on US Citizens, all of his staff are continuously being prosecuted for money laundering and various forms of Fraud, Soldiers are needless dying or senselessly torturing and killing people, Cheney gets drunk and shoots people, all of Bush’s staff continuously mishandle everything they touch, like Katrina, the list of Bush incompetence and lies goes on and on and on…its too much to hide at this point. And yet you expect people to continue to blindly follow this moron in office like you do, turning a blind eye as he continues to outsource America? All loyal Republican lap dogs can do is keep chanting the Clinton got a blow job mantra. The blow job Clinton got was nothing compared to the one Republican supporters give Bush and his cronies on a daily basis! Lets face it Steve, Americans are waking up and in the upcoming elections, we’re going to take our country back. We’ll see who’s crying once you don’t have any war news to watch at night. I guess you’ll just have to go back to kicking your dog and beating your kids thee way your dad did back in the idyllic 50’s you so wish America would return to.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhile we’re at it, maybe we can get the airlines to outsource their pilots to another Muslim country. I’m sure they can save money and the Feds will surely rubberstamp it.
After two weeks of watching the cartoon riots we are told to trust muslims? The damn cartoons were printed back in September but their governments were doing their best to fan the fires of the fanatics. Yet when the Taliban went about the systematic destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan nobody in the Muslim world intervened. Muslims have a right to distrust the western powers but don’t think for a second we don’t reserve the same right, particularly after September 11.
I wonder who in the Bush administration is getting a big old greasy bag of dollars for this deal? Think that was why Cheney got so drunk cellebrating a couple weekdends ago?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmDear Outsourced Profit – when you state “Those special interest groups influence decisions made by politicians, like outsourcing the control of US shipping Ports and American jobs to foreign countries. I appreciate the fact that your loyalties are with UAE, but the last time I checked, the UAE isn’t putting food on American tables. So if the UAE is receiving money Americans should be receiving for what occurs on American Soil, I have to disagree with that practice. We have plenty of Americans here that need those jobs operating US ports”.
Thank for bringing this up – I am not sure the basis, when you say the UAE is receiving monies from the Americans? I mean US DID NOT PAY DP world for the six ports. DP world paid the British $us$6.8 billion, for P&O company, which owned the six ports. The P&O board are so happy with the offer, because DP world actually over paid for the company(they were in tough battle with the Singapore government to acquire P&O). Do you know how many American jobs will be created in AMERICA because of this deal? Think for a moment, if you know the background. The UAE is a country with just about 4 million people, of which just about 1 million live in the Emirate of Dubai. Of the 4 million people, 80% are expatriates i.e. foreigners and less than 20% are UAE citizens. Given this ratio and the business and companuies and jobs in the UAE along with business practices in the UAE – they are NOT going to “replace” Americans with UAE citizens (believe me there aren’t that many citizens of the UAE who are unemployed, or who need the monies let alone leave their wonderful homes and move to the US). Also, acquiring the Six ports (especially after this storm of a debate)is a matter of prestige and pride for an and coming company like DP world. They will invest heavily on the six ports in the US and will bring more busineses and whiter than white best practices to the US ports – because if they don’t they will FAIL – and that is something a company like DP world and Dubai just cannot afford to do. Just look at the people Dubai government owned Emirates Airline employees – it shall give you the ratio of foreigners employed v/s citizens and the success Emirates Airline has enjoyed.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmAnd one more comment to Outsourced profit – my loyalties does not lie with the UAE. Yes, I was born and raised in the UAE & Africa. My dad is British (of Indian descent) and mom Canadian. I hold a Canadian citizenship and a US residency. I am the last person to believe in borders, boundaries and passports. I believe in collective good for all people…
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pmWow outsourced, disagree with your thinking and be accused of being a blind, dog kicking, Osama loving Nazi. You must be a laugh at parties.
And by the way the Bush administration is not turning over US ports to a foreign country. The federal government has reviewed the purchase of 1 foreign company by another foreign company that happens to hold contracts on 6 US maritime ports operations. The staffing of the respective corporate offices may change, but the daily workers will not. In fact, I don’t know of any corporation that would dismantle any successful operation, so most of the existing personnel will probably be there in the future.
As far as Osama goes, the US blew it. Clinton was advised to take him out and didn’t, then Bush did the same. How naive we are to the big world. Mostly because of the decline in our intelligence services. Should we have committed troops to Iraq? Probably not when we did, but sooner or later we would have been there. Everyone seems to forget that Saddam was ignoring the no fly zones, refusing inspections and for the most part evading the 10 plus UN resolutions. His people have admitted moving WMD items to Syria and other fellow Arab countries.
The Taliban had to go, no question. The problem that we face is that this whole area was partitioned off by arbitrary lines and geography, mostly by Great Britain. The countries were established without thought to the racial and religious makeup of the countries or the possible problems that would surface later on with the advent of electronics, airplanes and the establishment of an economic infrastructure.
Katrina showed everybody that Mother Nature rules. This was a failure by everyone that was involved. The Governor
refused help, the mayor didn’t require the busses and other transportation services into action, refused the Amtrack trains for evac, then the feds not able to bring in needed supplies and help. This was a disgrace. Don’t forget that the Army Corp of Engineers had commited about $15 Billion dollars in the previous years for levee control and the state legislature moved the monies elsewhere.
As far as a blowjob, I think the president should get 1 whenever he wants. Keep him happy. Make it a GS rated job.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pmOutsourced, one other thing the comment “back in the idyllic 50’s you so wish America would return to”, was the actual start of your outsourcing problems. In 1947 the US approved the Marshall Plan. By 1953 the United States had pumped in $13 billion, and Europe was standing on its feet again. (In todays numbers about $105 Billion)
Aside from helping to put Europe back on its feet, the Marshall Plan led to the Schuman Plan, which in turn led to Euratom, then the Coal and Iron Community and the Common Market, and pointed to what may yet evolve into an economically and politically united Europe. And the seeds planted for the current world economy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Thank for bringing this up – I am not sure the basis, when you say the UAE is receiving monies from the Americans?”
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
This deal between the Bush administration and the UAE is right out of the Tom Delay play book…nothing more than an elaborate money laundering scheme which consists of siphoning money from the American people in the form of taxes, building weapons, a fleet of F-18’s, selling them to the UAE, the Bushies kicking the money back to to the UAE for running the ports then the UAE kicking the money back to the Bushies for brokering the deal in the form of campaign finance. This is how the Bushies have been doing business since back when Bush sr sold weapons to Saddam going all the way back to Grandaddy Prescott Bush financing the Nazi’s.
As for how great the UAE is and all the great things they intend to do with laundered American tax dollars…I’ve heard better sales pitches from telephone solicitors. Keep trying Roshan.
“Wow outsourced, disagree with your thinking and be accused of being a blind, dog kicking, Osama loving Nazi. You must be a laugh at parties.”
Actually, at parties we just turn on Limbaugh, Hannity, or Oreilly to get our laughs. We wonder how American people could possibly be so stupid as to believe all the propaganda these Bush whores spew. Then we jump online and see you swallowing it like an intern. And like a loyal dog, you’ll keep making excuses for the corrupt Bush administration, minimizing it’s blunders, the deaths of innocent Americans and Iraqis, blaming Clinton, who btw did not take us into a war based on lies, or citing some other administration for doing something despicable. As if that makes what Bush and his cronies do right. Bush is your personal saviour as he obviously can do no wrong in your book. And Bush has the nerve to claim to be Christian. The irony is, Jesus was against everything Bush and Republicans stand for. Its too bad you have so much shit in your eyes you can’t see that.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pmJames, I know you think you’re much smarter than everyone here, so let me fill you in on a few facts. The concern IS with the OPERATION of the ports by Dubai Ports World. If the U.A.E. was invlovled in laundering money to the 9/11 hijackers, there should be at the very minumum a 45 day investigation which is REQUIRED BY LAW. I wonder what Bush is so afraid might come out during the course of those 45 days.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:26 pmI also want you to consider the economics of terror. It is just as unsafe for Dubai to run ports on the east coast just as it is for COSCO to operate on the west coast. Why? Companies like COSCO are owned in part by the Chinese government. Dubai is owned in part by the U.A.E. These governments have a vested interest in seeing another attack on U.S. soil. A terror attack means increased U.S. government spending (damages, further security measures, and good old pork barrel spending). Also existing foreign investers not privy to the information of a pending attack get weak at the knees and pull out. This leads to a futher devalued American dollar. A devalued American dollar means that Bejing and Dubai as well as our good old Saudi friends can invested in more assets like ports, hotels, and American dollars at a reduced cost, then ride the rebound.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but after the terror attacks in london, the British Pound Sterling plummeted in value, then made a spectacular recovery within a day. That translates into billions of dollars being invested from a source(s) outside of England.
Even if the ports were secure under the new management, it would be foolish to think that some of the money flowing from American ports wouldn’t be coming back into the coffers of our good friend O.B.L. through bank accounts in Dubai. I also find it ironic that one country (namely Iraq) that was, at best, tangetially involved in 9/11 was blown back into the stone age, and another country (the United Arab Emirates) who WAS involved in 9/11 and partially responsible for the $2.50 i pay at the pump, gets the privelege of operating six American ports. And why is it that Bush, whom I voted for twice (sorry guys), uses his veto power for the FIRST TIME IN SIX YEARS to ensure an Arab company runs American ports. I am disguted and ashamed of our Commander-in-Chief.
Unlimited money; the sinews of war. Allowing Arab companies to operated American ports is at best providing the sinew for the weapons of our enemies, and at worst providing an open portal for a doomsday weapon to land on our shores. You should take that into consideration.
James,i understand what you’re saying,but thats not the point.If you’re king george and constantly spouting about how great you are because you’re protecting Americans you don’t hand over control of your ports to the very same people that helped start all this shit.The average joe helped put idiot george in office because they were afraid of the “terrists”.They do not discern an average middle easterner from a “terrist”.To them all middle easterners are “terrists” and now the king idiot wants to give control of our ports to the “terrists” be it Dubai,Jordan or any of the other modern Arabic states.This is commonly refered to as ignorance.They are now reaping what they have sewn.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pmOutsource, your comments are indicitive of the beaten snarling dog syndrome that is pervasive in the democratic party idealogue. If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.
The absolute ridiculous statements you are making about kickbacks and money laundering are the result of you following your Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry down the liberal garden path. The sale of the P&O corp to the Dubai Ports did not need executive approval. The process was vetted by a congressionally mandated board.
As far as Clinton not involving us into wars based on lies and blunders, no he set the table with blunders and omissions. He dropped acouple of bombs on Iraq, then nothing else. Al-Qaede blows up the Cole, nothing, Al-Qaede lights up 2 US embassy’s, blew up a baby formula factory, he didn’t send troops to Rwanda, just watched the atrocities and genocide. In ‘95 committed troops to the Balkans for a defined 1 year tour, oops 9 years. In addition to impeachment and the Whitewater scandal, the Clinton White House was the subject of many other controversies.
The White House travel office controversy involved allegations of impropriety in the firing of civil service staffers. The White House personnel file controversy involved improper access by security officials to FBI files on White House personnel, without first asking for the individuals’ permission. The Bill Clinton pardons controversy involved a grant of clemency to FALN bombers in 1999 and pardons to his brother, tax-evading billionaire Marc Rich and others in 2001.
The “Chinagate” controversy involved allegations of improper campaign contributions to President Clinton’s legal defense fund and the Democratic National Committee, by individuals such as John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia, et al. Allegedly, the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government. Seventeen donors and fund-raisers were convicted of felonies due to the affair.
In March, 1998 Kathleen Willey, a White House aide, alleged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her. Also in 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in 1978. No charges were filed in either case.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was acquitted on each of 30 charges of illegally accepting gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and transportation from companies regulated by his department in exchange for favors. [20] HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of lying to the FBI about the amount of money he gave his mistress, political fundraiser Linda Medlar. Medlar plead guilty to 28 counts related to the investigation. Both Medlar and Cisneros were pardoned by Clinton.
On Clinton’s last day in office, he pardoned over 200 convicted felons, including his brother Roger, who was imprisoned on drug charges and Dan Rostenkowski, the former Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee who had been convicted on corruption and mail fraud charges. Another one of those pardoned was Marc Rich, a financier who had fled the United States decades before for tax evation and other illegal activities. Rich’s wife Denise had pleaded with the president for years to pardon her ex-husband and that she personally donated money to his presidential library in exchange for a pardon for her husband. Then we can look at the Rose Law firm and Vincent Foster’s death.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmAn Unlikely Criminal Crossroads
12/5/05
From Egypt to Afghanistan, when terrorists and gangsters need a place to meet, to relax, maybe to invest, they head to Dubai, a bustling city-state on the Persian Gulf. The Middle East’s unquestioned financial capital, Dubai is the showcase of the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich federation of sheikdoms. Forty years ago, Dubai was a backwater; today, it hosts dozens of banks and one of the world’s busiest ports; its free-trade zones are crammed with thousands of companies. Construction is everywhere–skyscrapers, malls, hotels, and, soon, the world’s tallest building.
But Dubai also serves as the region’s criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking. There are Russian and Indian mobsters, Iranian arms traffickers, and Arab jihadists. Funds for the 9/11 hijackers and African embassy bombers were transferred through the city. It was the heart of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan’s black market in nuclear technology and other proliferation cases. Half of all applications to buy U.S. military equipment from Dubai are from bogus front companies, officials say. “Iran,” adds one U.S. official, “is building a bomb through Dubai.” Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents thwarted the shipment of 3,000 U.S. military night-vision goggles by an Iranian pair based in Dubai. Moving goods undetected is not hard. Dhows–rickety wooden boats that have plowed the Arabian Sea for centuries–move along the city center, uninspected, down the aptly named Smuggler’s Creek.
U.A.E. rulers have taken terrorism seriously since 9/11, but Washington has a half-dozen extradition requests that they refuse to honor. The list includes people accused of rape, murder, and arms trafficking, and the last fugitive of the BCCI banking scandal. The country has put money laundering controls on the books but has made few cases. Interior Minister Sheik Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan told U.S. News the U.A.E. has made great strides in cracking down, but he insists that the real problems lie elsewhere. “We are a neutral country, like Switzerland,” he says. “Give us the evidence, and we will do something about it. Don’t blame others.” Not everyone agrees. “All roads lead to Dubai,” says former treasury agent John Cassara, author of Hide and Seek, a forthcoming book on terrorism finance. Cassara tried explaining U.S. concerns about Dubai to a local businessman but got only a puzzled look: “Mr. John, money laundering? But that’s what we do. ” -David E. Kaplan
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmAt a time in our Nation’s history when concerns over terrorism at home and abroad are on the lips of most Americans. At a time when the leaders of our country and our Armed Forces are engaged and embattled with fighting the spread of terror at a cost of trillions of dollars and over 2,400 American lives it does not seem to be a prudent decision to allow operational controls of six of our most important ports (New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami and Philadelphia.) to be handed over to a company that is State owned and located in the very area where our concerns over the spread of terrorism lie.
I understand that the UAE are our allies in the fight against terrorism. But that is TODAY. But what of tomorrow, with instability running rampant throughout the area, with area wide rioting & destruction of everything Western over an editorial comic, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that sentiments could change, governments could change, for God’s sake it’s about the size of Maine, how difficult would it be to destabilize? And lets face it, through history our track record for choosing allies and backing leaders has not been great. We are in far too tenuous a position to allow this if there is even the slightest, most ridiculous hint of concern. We must err on the side of caution. To use as an argument that terrorist access would be no greater if D-P World were in control than it is now is not comforting, it is extremely disconcerting and frankly quite frightening, especially when politicians are rabidly defending the necessity of once again overspending the budget, allowing domestic wiretaps, and the reinstitution of the Patriot Act, all in the name of National Security.
All of the rhetoric points to the importance of National Security but in the simplest terms possible – WE ARE ALLOWING THE FOX TO GUARD THE HEN HOUSE!!!
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:25 pmThe Bush Administration has shown complete hypocrisy and betrayal of the American public in allowing those who sponsor terrorism a foothold in American ports. How can Bush send thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq in the fight against terrorism, and at the same time pledge his support to a company with financial ties to those same terrorists? Republicans and Democrats alike should oppose this insanity.
Sign the petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/T9394/petition.html
and forward to all who are concerned about America’s security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:46 pmOutsource, your comments are indicitive of the beaten snarling dog syndrome that is pervasive in the democratic party idealogue. Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Actually my comments are indicative of a former Republican and US Soldier who feels betrayed by the very people (Republicans) he once believed represented the interests of the American people. Evidently the democratic party feels the same way so it appears thats where I belong. I guess in a way I feel Americans are getting beaten up by people like you and by Bush and his cronies. 3 men I trained died in Iraq and I can’t justify their loss.
The absolute ridiculous statements you are making about kickbacks and money laundering are the result of you following your Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry down the liberal garden path. The sale of the P&O corp to the Dubai Ports did not need executive approval. The process was vetted by a congressionally mandated board. Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Thats very interesting because I never heard the comments made by any of the aforementioned individuals regarding the outsourcing of US ports to the UAE. When I saw the headline in the newspaper, the dots simply connected. I’ve seen enough of Bush’s lies and propaganda to know when something dirty is going on. The fact that Bush is threatening to veto any congressional opposition to this deal is enough for me to know where he stands. I don’t need to listen to any of the politicians you have a hard on for to know what Bush is up to. And given the amount of public opinion that agrees outsourcing control of US ports is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, I’m not as out of touch with reality as you appear to be. If the notion that Bush is involved in kickbacks and money laundering with the UAE is so far fetched, why are all of his cronies getting indicted for fraud and money laundering?
If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Steve, I’ve read your Bush programmed, regurgitated comments. You aren’t capable of being critical of Bush. In typical Republican lockstep fashion, you quickly shift the focus away from Bush onto a page long Clinton resume. This is all you brainwashed Republicans have left to divert attention away from focusing on Bush’s criminal conduct, bash Clinton. I didn’t vote for Clinton and it really doesn’t matter what Clinton did at this point. Bush, not Clinton, is in office now and what he’s doing appears to be far worse than what Clinton ever did. Bush is responsible for sending thousands of US troops to be maimed or to their deaths. 9/11 happened under Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s. Nothing Clinton did, NOTHING, will ever eclipse that. Bush, not Clinton, is endorsing the outsourcing of US ports. But you keep on doing what you do best Steve. Keep on flapping about Clinton. Thats how you avoid dealing with your boy Bush. Thats all you got man and its really pathetic.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:59 pmComments to John: You are so blinded by ignorance, anger, and a whole lot if emotions, I am not even going to try and change your perspective – cause only you can do that. However please see my responses to some of your comments below….
“If the U.A.E. was invlovled in laundering money to the 9/11 hijackers, there should be at the very minumum a 45 day investigation which is REQUIRED BY LAW”
A review was performed, it is not mandated a review should take the full 45 days. I mean this is basic logic, i.e. you sit for a test the test has a time of 3 hours, however you wrapped up the test in 21/2 hrs confident you’ve done a good job – why would you want to sit the extra 30 minutes for? Likewise, the DP world folks approached the US in late November, even before starting their bid for P&O to get the review process going. The DP folks were proactive in providing and complying with the US goverment on this matter – even without knowing if they could win the bid.
“A devalued American dollar means that Bejing and Dubai as well as our good old Saudi friends can invested in more assets like ports, hotels, and American dollars at a reduced cost, then ride the rebound.”
FYI – the UAE Dirham (currency of the UAE) is pegged at 3.67 to the US$. So any fluctuations with the US$ has the same affect on the UAE currency.
“some of the money flowing from American ports wouldn’t be coming back into the coffers of our good friend O.B.L. through bank accounts in Dubai. I also find it ironic that one country (namely Iraq) that was, at best, tangetially involved in 9/11 was blown back into the stone age, and another country (the United Arab Emirates) who WAS involved in 9/11 and partially responsible for the $2.50 i pay at the pump, gets the privelege of operating six American ports”
Don’t know where to start on this one – please give me an instance, how monies are going to FLOW from America to Dubai, if DP world has already paid the owner of the Six ports – P&O the British company. If anything, monies and jobs are set to flow into the US, because of the investments DP world will do on their best acqusition to date! How can you say the UAE was knowingly involved in 9/11? OBL & croonies transfered monies from banks across all countries even European countries and the US. Hell US citizens manage the INS – and they issued visas to the 9/11 hijackers! Also Just because a misguided soul from the UAE took part in 9/11 does not make all of UAE or Dubai a terrorist nation i.e. by the same token, Timothy Mcveigh did a horrible act – does that make all Americans Timothy Mcveighs?
And lastly you cry about $2.50 PER GALLON – what DO YOU THINK PPL PAY AT GAS PUMPS IN DUBAI!!!!! Check your facts before spreading such non sense.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 pmComment to Outsourced Profit. I have nothing to sell, I don’t even want to “sell” you anything. I am fortunate to have grown up in different countries across the world with parents from different backgrounds. Having lived on and off in the US and permenantly the last 6 years in NYC, I have only come to appreciate the place even more. No place is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and every basket has bad apples. I am not a supported of Bush, but he does do things that has silver linings, and at times (in case of DP world) what is right. I cannot deny that, simply because I dislike Bush, can I?
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:12 pmIf you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
And oh btw Steve, I forgot to compliment you.
If “the shoe doesn’t fit”…You must acquit? You do a better job of defending Bush than Johnny Cochran did defending OJ. Maybe when they Impeach Bush you can transmit your “but clinton did such and such…” defense to the talking dummy backpack Bush wears during debates and press conferences.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:20 pmIsrael Vs. UAE for port ops?!
Roshan – OBVIOUSLY a ‘no brainer’ there re: “…would you or Charles Schumer raise all this voice if Israel were to purchase P&O instead of Dubai Ports world?”
The Israelis are FAMOUS for their security!
But what about the REAL ‘point’ here? Rewarding another BushCo oil buddy – a group of tribal despots with familial links to Osama and the Bin Ladins – NOT democraticly elected.
and
Simultaneously pulling all funding from the Palestinians because democracy didn’t ‘work’ out’ there the way we ‘figured’.
Pure Bushit!
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:52 pmKen, I agree with you, it is wrong to pull support US support from uneducated Palestinians especially living in such poverty. The least we could do is get into dialogue with Hamas, rather than block them out completely?
” But what about the REAL ‘point’ here? Rewarding another BushCo oil buddy – a group of tribal despots with familial links to Osama and the Bin Ladins – NOT democraticly elected”
I am honestly tired of explaining this again and again – read thru this link and you will see Dubai has very little oil, and infact very little oil GDP, and that is why they are developing alternate economies and GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
As for Israel and security, please explain how they cannot protect their own homes from Palestinian bombs but protect US ports??
More importantly – why are you CONVINCED Dubai and the UAE are weak on security. Here is a basic comment, the UAE and Dubai, a capitalist, western life style ME city has prevented any attack on their land till today ( for tomorrow I don’t know). Do you even know the level of security skills and technology that is in place in Dubai and the UAE – a country which has proximity to other Arab countries? And please don’t throw the 9/11 example, every, every country was duped by OBL & croonies prior to 9/11. Do you know Emirates (one of the most successful airline in the world) flies direct from Dubai to JFK every day of the year for the past two years – do you know the level of security that flight and passengers go thru?
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:43 pmKen – nothing is fool proof, at the sametime, we cannot live in fear and alienate countries like the UAE, who have supported us and continue to do so.
Plus – it is the US customs and border protection which monitors and manages security. DP world takes over P&O port leases – the security at the destination and origin (if US bound) is managed by the US customs and border protection. And that is not going to change.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 pmHere’s the type of ally the US can look forward to when partnering up with and allowing the UAE to run our ports. Here’s where American children are at risk of winding up if the UAE has access to them:
Child camel jockeys in the UAE
In 2004, Anti-Slavery International sent a photographer to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to photograph children racing and training in the Gulf state. The photographs prove that, despite the Government’s repeated statements that this practice has stopped, it is still a problem. Two years ago, the Government announced that using children under 15 and lighter than 45 kilograms to race camels would be banned from 1 September 2002 and offenders punished. For more about this issue, see our submission to the UN.
All the photographs below were taken in 2004 at the Nad Al Sheba racecourse in Dubai, but children were seen racing and training across the country.
If you would like to use any of these images, see photographs (conditions of use) or contact Becky Shand on +44 (0)20 7501 8922 or email b.shand@antislavery.org
All photos © CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Click on an image to enlarge it.
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/resources/cameljockeysgallery/gallery.htm
Some boys are so young they have to be tied onto the camel. Only owners get money or prizes for winning, the children get nothing.
Most camel jockeys are under 10; they are seen as too heavy at 15.
Boys have been seriously injured and some died as a result.
Despite the harsh reality, child camel jockeys are a tourist attraction.
Most jockeys only have a sheet on the sand for a bed and basic shelter.
Children are frequently deprived of food and water to keep them light. In summer, children race, train and tend the camels in over 40C heat.
Camel racing using child jockeys is clearly visible across the Emirates.
All photos © CDP/Anti-Slavery International
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:54 pmOutsource, first sorry for your loss, the death of any serviceman is tragic. I know because I have 3 friends in theater and my best friend is on IRR looking to re-up to go back over. I can only hope that the political aspects of Iraq aren’t overshadowing the positive and pro-active service that our guys are providing over there.
Now to the rest… I was rebutting your statements about
Leaving that aside, why are the previously awarded contracts to a British Company not raising an eyebrow? Are we now going to racially profile all non-caucasian corporate sales? Wow, even the ACLU should have major fits over this one.
Ken Tucker, what is so hard to think about another management company replacing a management company. The US didn’t place the company up for sale. The first company had nothing to do with port security, so why the bother? In fact the Homeland Security has gotten major concessions from the new company in regard to strengthening security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:56 pmHuman Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (TIER 3) [Extracted from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2005]
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is a destination country for women trafficked primarily from South, Southeast, and East Asia, the former Soviet Union, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, and East Africa, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. A far smaller number of men, women, and teenage children were trafficked to the U.A.E. to work as forced laborers. Some South Asian and East African boys were trafficked into the country and forced to work as camel jockeys. Some were sold by their parents to traffickers, and others were brought into the U.A.E. by their parents. A large number of foreign women were lured into the U.A.E. under false pretenses and subsequently forced into sexual servitude, primarily by criminals of their own countries. Personal observations by U.S. Government officials and video and photographic evidence indicated the continued use of trafficked children as camel jockeys. There were instances of child camel jockey victims who were reportedly starved to make them light, abused physically and sexually, denied education and health care, and subjected to harsh living and working conditions. Some boys as young as 6 months old were reportedly kidnapped or sold to traffickers and raised to become camel jockeys. Some were injured seriously during races and training sessions, and one child died after being trampled by the camel he was riding. Some victims trafficked for labor exploitation endured harsh living and working conditions and were subjected to debt bondage, passport withholding, and physical and sexual abuse.
The U.A.E. Government does not collect statistics on persons trafficked into the country, making it difficult to assess its efforts to combat the problem. Widely varying reports, mostly from NGOs, international organizations, and source countries, estimated the number of trafficking victims in the U.A.E. to be from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Regarding foreign child camel jockeys, the U.A.E. Government estimated there were from 1,200 to 2,700 such children in the U.A.E., while a respected Pakistani human rights NGO active in the U.A.E. estimated 5,000 to 6,000. The U.A.E. Government has taken several steps that may lead to potentially positive outcomes, such as requiring children from source countries to have their own passports, and collaborating with UNICEF and source-country governments to develop a plan for documenting and safely repatriating all underage camel jockeys
The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims. The U.A.E. Government needs to enact and enforce a comprehensive trafficking law that criminalizes all forms of trafficking and provides for protection of trafficking victims. The government should also institute systematic screening measures to identify trafficking victims among the thousands of foreign women arrested and deported each year for involvement in prostitution. The government should take immediate steps to rescue and care for the many foreign children trafficked to the U.A.E. as camel jockeys, repatriating them through responsible channels if appropriate. The government should also take much stronger steps to investigate, prosecute, and convict those responsible for trafficking these children to the U.A.E.
Prosecution During the reporting period, the U.A.E. made minimal efforts to prosecute traffickers. Despite the ongoing trafficking and exploitation of thousands of children as camel jockeys and women in sexual servitude, the government made insufficient efforts in 2004 to criminally prosecute and punish anyone behind these forms of trafficking. The U.A.E. Government announced in April 2005 that it would soon enact a new law banning underage camel jockeys. Currently, the U.A.E. does not have a comprehensive anti-trafficking law. The government can use various laws under its criminal codes to prosecute trafficking-related crimes effectively, but there have been only a few such cases prosecuted. In 2004, U.A.E. officials declared that the 2002 Presidential Decree against the exploitation of children as camel jockeys was legally unenforceable – effectively asserting that the U.A.E. had no legal mechanism to address this serious crime. The U.A.E.’s new law, when enacted and implemented, is expected to enable enforcement of the Decree.
In 2004, according to an NGO, immigration authorities worked with source-country NGOs, embassies, and consulates to rescue and repatriate 400 trafficked former camel jockeys to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sudan. The government transferred the anti-trafficking portfolio from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Interior – a ministry with a law enforcement authority – and created a designated anti-child trafficking unit within the Ministry of Interior. In December 2004, the government opened a rehabilitation center for the care of rescued child camel jockeys, and from December 2004 to April 2005, rescued approximately 68 children and repatriated 43 of them to their countries of origin, primarily Pakistan. However, the number of rescued and repatriated children through these efforts is insignificant compared to the huge number (estimated in the thousands) openly exploited at camel racetracks throughout the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the government investigated, prosecuted, and punished anyone for trafficking, abusing, and exploiting children as camel jockeys.
The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to prosecute crimes relating to trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation were equally disappointing. Despite a few arrests and prosecutions of those involved in such crimes, including travel and employment agencies that reportedly facilitate the trafficking of victims, U.A.E. law enforcement efforts during the year focused largely on the arrest, incarceration, and deportation of over 5,000 foreign women in prostitution, many of whom are likely trafficking victims. The police do not make concerted, proactive efforts to distinguish trafficking victims among women arrested for prostitution and illegal immigration; as a result, victims are punished with incarceration and deportation. Although the U.A.E. criminalized the withholding of employees’ passports by employers, there is inconsistent enforcement of the law, and the practice continues to be widespread in both the private and public sectors. The government claims to have taken civil and administrative actions against hundred of employers who abused or failed to pay their domestic employees. The government does not keep data on trafficking and related investigations, arrests, and prosecutions.
Protection The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to provide protection and assistance to victims of trafficking were minimal during the reporting period. Its efforts to protect child camel jockeys were limited to the opening of one shelter in Abu Dhabi in December 2004 and the repatriation of approximately 443 rescued child camel jockeys. Given the estimated thousands of boys being openly exploited in the country, the total number rescued and repatriated so far is small. Following increased public attention to the camel jockey situation and rescue efforts by the government, an international NGO alleged that some camel owners are hiding a large number of child victims in the desert and in neighboring countries. However, there is no evidence the government has taken action to investigate and prevent this crime. The government is also working with the Governments of Bangladesh and Pakistan to establish U.A.E. Government-funded shelters in those countries to receive and care for rescued and repatriated children.
The government’s efforts to protect and assist victims of trafficking for sexual and labor exploitation have also been minimal. U.A.E. police continue to arrest and punish trafficking victims along with others engaged in prostitution, unless the victims identify themselves as having been trafficked. The U.A.E.’s numerous foreign domestic and agricultural workers are excluded from protection under U.A.E. labor laws and, as such, many are vulnerable to serious exploitation that constitutes involuntary servitude, a severe form of trafficking. The government does not have a shelter facility for foreign workers who are victims of involuntary servitude, but relies on housing provided by embassies, source-country NGOs, and concerned U.A.E. residents. The U.A.E. Government states it offers housing, work permits, counseling, medical care, and other necessary support for those labor victims who agree to testify against their traffickers. However, few victims reportedly benefited from these government-provided services. In 2004, the Dubai Police Human Rights Department reported assisting such victims in 18 trafficking cases. The Dubai Police also assigns Victim Assistant Coordinators to police stations to advise victims of their rights, encourage victims to testify, and provide other essential services to victims.
Prevention The U.A.E. slightly increased its trafficking prevention efforts over the past year, particularly efforts to prevent the trafficking of children to work as camel jockeys. Prevention measures reportedly included closer screening of visa applications by U.A.E. embassies in source countries, distributing informational material directly to newly arrived foreign workers, supplying brochures to source-country embassies and consulates to warn potential victims, conducting specific anti-trafficking training for police and various government personnel, and conducting training for immigration inspectors in document fraud detection methods.
In March and April 2005, the U.A.E. Government announced a variety of measures to begin to address the country’s serious trafficking problems more effectively. The government announced in April that a new law, similar to the Presidential ban already in place but not enforced since September 2002, would be enacted soon. The law reportedly would ban jockeys under age 16 from participating in camel races and stipulate that a jockey’s weight must exceed 45 kilograms (99 pounds). At the time of this writing, the law had not been enacted. The U.A.E. Government also announced in April new procedures to facilitate the repatriation of those underage foreign camel jockeys already in the country and to prevent new ones from entering. Beginning on March 31, 2005, camel farm owners would have two months to repatriate all underage foreign camel jockeys working on their farms. After this grace period, the government would begin levying fines against anyone harboring underage camel jockeys. The government stated in March 2005 that it would enforce a new requirement that all source-country expatriate residents, including children, have their own passports. The government reportedly instructed ports of entry to ensure that no underage children enter the country for the purpose of being used as a camel jockey. It also stated that a medical committee would begin conducting tests on all jockeys as part of the pre-race handicapping. The government reported that it had identified adequate shelters in Pakistan and Bangladesh to assist underage camel jockeys who had been repatriated to those countries, and that it would provide financing to source country organizations to handle such repatriations. From October 2002 to January 2005, the U.A.E., through the use of iris recognition technology and document fraud detecting methods, prevented 26,000 potential illegal immigrants from coming into the country, some of whom were likely trafficking victims.
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/UnitedArabEmirates.htm
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:36 pmResponse to BanUAEtrade – as per your latest message# 380 the UAE govt is addressing the issue and taking steps to prevent and erradicate this horrible crime on child jockeys – so why do you still carry on with “BanUAEtrade” . May I ask, because of childporn in the US – rest of the world should cease to trade with the US? I am just trying to assess your intent, i.e. UAE is a 34 year old country NO question – they have a long way to go in many aspects, but why would you cry out loud “Ban UAE trade”?
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pmIt looks to me like BanUAEtrade found the real dirt on the UAE. It seems birds of a feather flock together. No wonder Bush is doing business with the UAE. Both Bush and the UAE have a track record of committing crimes against humanity. Thanks for the links and the reports BanUAEtrade. Its about time someone put the spotlight on the type of corrupt governments like the UAE Bush has in his pocket! Not only should we not outsource our ports but especially not to governments that support the slavery of women and children and forced labor and have ties with terrorism and money laundering. Good call BanUAEtrade!
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:52 pm“I am honestly tired of explaining this again and again…”
Roshan
Chosing Dubai as representative of the UAE’s oil stature is like selecting South Dakota for it’s beaches. That selective fact(oid) presentation won’t/don’t ‘fly’.
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is important to world energy markets because it contains 98 billion barrels, or nearly 10 percent, of the world’s proven oil reserves. The UAE also holds the world’s fifth-largest natural gas reserves and exports significant amounts of liquefied natural gas.”
anyone can google the EIA (Energy Information Admin) at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/uae.html
IF they’d like a factual representation of the UAE’s holdings.
so, please, spare me the sob story about the ‘poor’ sheik s of the UAE.
and
as to fuel prices in Dubai…ask me if I give a f**k! NO! (by the way they are heavily subsidized and JUST got above [the equivalent of]$2…BFD! what I care about is BushCo feathering their retirement ‘beds’ with sweetheart deals for their oil whore friends and no-bid KBR/halliburton contracts at the expense of AMERICAN kids and Iraqi civilians lives.
it’s ALL about corporate fascism and who can stuff their pockets with the most blood/oil money…
period.
Take back the ports, STOP subsidizing China’s oil competition with $200 BILLION dollar trade imbalances (which they are using for buying up even more oil), and bring home our children.
a VERY pissed off and vigilant Vietnam Vet
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:27 pm[...] ThinkProgress has some identity crisis, apparently. On February 20th, they write: There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 amSelling virtually unlimited access of American homeland port terminals to a foreign government-owned company, especially in time of war with extremists from the same region as our working “allies” is inviting an attack on the American people! It’s clearly understood that these port terminals are to be property of the government of the UAE.
Politicians in Washington say it’s fear and discrimination- I’ll live with that stigma if it means that there is no access to terrorists and/or none of my countrymen is killed here at home. I have nothing against the Arabs, Islam, or stable governments there; however, we are at war. Would we have sold port terminals to the Soviets during WWII because we were allies against the Axis Powers?
A worse-case-senario would be if tensions with Iran become untenable and go nuclear; if North Korea carries out its threats; and if Al-Qaida aquires the capability; (the government of the UAE may be our allies today, but that could change in an instant)- we will have the possibility of six nuclear devices in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. If any one nuclear device (or all six devices) goes off in port- the results would be devastating to the United States.
Theoretically, with little warning and emphasis on civil defense; hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people would die, six large metropolitan cities would be destroyed- along with adjoining urban areas (Washington, D.C. is within an earshot of Baltimore), the U.S. economy would be crippled, eastern infrastructure would be in shambles, and the eastern seaboard would be in chaos. This would leave the U.S. open to possible strike by nuclear or conventional attack by rogue or hostile states laying in wait. Our allies would help- but too little, too late.
Those who oppose this “nightmare senario” must make it clear to the President and Congress that that is the threat we face! I’d rather be paranoid and alive, than naive and dead! There must be public outrage and it must be loud and clear- demand to our “elected” leaders to do their duty and defend the United States of America!
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 amDamn! I should have used the spell check!
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:53 amTo Roshan
First of all I must respectfully say that if you had looked at a map of the U.A.E. and a map of the United States, you might have noticed that the U.S. is much bigger, and has a vast amount of goods that must be carried vast distances. paying 2.50 a gallon in the United States has far greater implications than paying a high price in Dubai. For example my friend, who owns a trucking firm, has been struggling to make ends-meat because of your freinds in Dubai and elswhere in the OPEC cartel. Furthermore, if you could complete a thorough investigation of a company owned by the U.A.E. in less than 45 days, and be abolutely, 100% certain that there is no possible threat to port security, than I AM MICKEY MOUSE! Oh and the F.B.I. also mentioned that Dubai stonewalled their efforts to track Osama bin Ladens bank accounts, which is specific enough to deep six any transaction with a company owned by the royal family, let alone a transaction that invlolves six U.S. ports. Also Roshan no country’s currency is “pegged” as you call it to a certain number of U.S. dollars. The value fluctuates. We aren’t on a global currency yet as you well know.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:05 amFurthermore, if the U.A.E. operates these six American ports, they will be doing it for profit. That profit will undoubteldy be spent on some of Osama bin Ladens activities. You might recall that George Tenet, former director of the C.I.A, said that they couldn’t kill bin Laden because he was at a meeting with the royal family from the U.A.E. Maybe they were just having tea.
Also if you didn’t know already, the despotic rulers of the middle east stay in power by funding a certain degree of terrorist activities. When they stop bin Laden strikes them, as he did recently in Saudi Arabia.
I know you think that we are just a bunch of stupid Americans, and Dubai should be allowed to own and operate the U.S. military as well, but please don’t insult my intelligence by making up your own facts and figures. And I hate to resort to the old redneck adage, but if you love Dubai so much, why aren’t you living there?
hey Ken thanks for your service to our country and for preaching the gospel. I’m sorry men like you have to deal with such a failure of leadership. There is hope for America and it lies in the debate that we are having here, and all across the country.
Your friend
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:14 amWell I just got done writing a letter to the WHITE HOUSE telling them how I feel. They are concerned about how we would look if this deal didnt go through. WHO CARES. We cant even secure our AIrports, lets give someone who works with the Taliban easy access to our safety. Why dont we just nominate a ARAB for Presidency? What a Joke Bush is. I hope all of our Governors that are concerned as much as I am can stop this sale.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:29 amAny Complaints? Email, comments@whitehouse.gov.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 amI am an American who has lived in Dubai and I have been searching for another word to describe Congress’ reaction, as well as most of the posts here… but I can’t. The only appropriate word for the reaction is STUPID. Who would have thought that self-proclaimed progressives would end up being the jingoistic, xenophobic bigots?!?! I’m ashamed to be associated with you.
Dubai is the most liberal, modern, city (not country like some congressmen allege) in the Middle East. This company, nor the government of Dubai, has done anything against US security interests. In fact, Dubai is the biggest liberty port in the world for US sailors. Dubai is also the finance center for the Middle East, so to say they have links to 9/11 is like saying Bill Gates has monetary links to Wall Street.
I was most astonished to see that some Congressmen said that this outcry has nothing to do with DP World being an Arab company, ‘if any foreign nation bought it we would do this.’ These Congressmen are so uninformed that they didn’t notice that these ports have been operated by a British Company for years.
Even if none of this was true, no one has shown yet how this company operating these ports would compromise US security. Not one iota of evidence. Just racist, fearmongering blather. And from the looks of it, only because it’s an issue to attack President Bush with. You people are proving what so many conservatives say about us — that we don’t give a crap about issues, we just hate Bush. Too many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are using this as a political play. There are no merits to their objections and they are wasting time and money that could be better spent talking about something that actually matters.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:57 amI didn’t read all of the comments above, but have one question. Do we not have any US companies that can do this job???
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:29 amDear “A VERY pissed off and vigilant Vietnam Vet Ken Tucker” –
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is important to world energy markets because it contains 98 billion barrels, or nearly 10 percent, of the world’s proven oil reserves. The UAE also holds the world’s fifth-largest natural gas reserves and exports significant amounts of liquefied natural gas”
I never said the UAE has no oil – I said Dubai has little or no oil now. Abu Dhabi, the capital of UAE is the only emirate of the seven emirates that make up the UAE, which has oil. Ken, you have to understand each Emirate is independent of the other like the US states, more importantly oil revenues from Abu Dhabi’s barrels of oil is not shared with proportionaly with Dubai and the other Emirates, there is a lot of politics involved there. If you visited and lived in the UAE, you would know why Dubai is doing what it’s doing, and why Abu Dhabi or the Saudis or other ME countries such as Oman and Qatar – do little to succeed like Dubai.
There is no need for sob stories on sheikhs, these are wealthy people with tons of monies. The only difference from the ones from Dubai is that they are doing something constructive with the monies they have, they know a mutual business and PR with the US will do the city, the country and the region a lot of good.
“as to fuel prices in Dubai…ask me if I give a f**k! NO! (by the way they are heavily subsidized and JUST got above [the equivalent of]$2…BFD”
Well I assume, you did not read John’s comment# 365. He commented that it’s because of the UAE he is paying $2.50 per gallon at the pumps. I am trying to tell him, it’s not solely because of oil producing countries that gas prices go up, because in the UAE, hardworking people and families like you, John & I pay the almost the same i.e. $2 – the difference is because they have no taxes in the Middle East, whereas we pay 25% tax on our gas prices.
“what I care about is BushCo feathering their retirement ‘beds’ with sweetheart deals for their oil whore friends and no-bid KBR/halliburton contracts at the expense of AMERICAN kids and Iraqi civilians lives.”
You seem to be confusing Aamerican companies and Iraqi contracts with this Port deal.
Again before you get all worked up and pissed off, do some correct research. I agree with you, in a capitalistic economy like the US or Dubai, perhaps business transactions are given priority of people’s sentiments, but it does not hurt to take a look at the collective good coming of such trade going forward.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 amJohn (here we go again :)
“First of all I must respectfully say that if you had looked at a map of the U.A.E. and a map of the United States, you might have noticed that the U.S. is much bigger, and has a vast amount of goods that must be carried vast distances. paying 2.50 a gallon in the United States has far greater implications than paying a high price in Dubai. For example my friend, who owns a trucking firm, has been struggling to make ends-meat because of your freinds in Dubai and elswhere in the OPEC cartel.”
John, you have to understand the economies of Oil. Oil prices do not go up simply & solely because OPEC countries wants it.
Secondly, I completely agree with the oil priceses in the US have risen, hence placing families & friends such as your trucking friend in difficult situations. However, even if the UAE is a small country, everything purchased in the UAE is imported – hence oil prices are emmbeded into the cost of goods sold in the UAE (there is no tax, so that is a plus), the country has little manufacturing acitivity, until recently. Also, for an average non trucking family in UAE, oil prices affect them as much as it affects average American families. You see there is very little public transportation and no subway or rail service to speak off. Everyone has a car to drive to work, to school and for personal stuff and they all pay $2 per gallon (again no tax on the $2 that is why it is lower than the $2.50 we pay in the US)
“Furthermore, if you could complete a thorough investigation of a company owned by the U.A.E. in less than 45 days, and be abolutely, 100% certain that there is no possible threat to port security, than I AM MICKEY MOUSE!”
Why are you so CONVINCED the UAE is filled with terrorists who are wanting to harm the US??? Again do some correct research. Plus you seem to forget, it was DP world who
proactively approached the US government to comply with all US regulations and beyond, even weeks before they started their bid for P&O. Hence perhaps the full 45 days may not have been required.
“Also Roshan no country’s currency is “pegged†as you call it to a certain number of U.S. dollars. The value fluctuates. We aren’t on a global currency yet as you well know.”
John, visit any website and check out the value of the UAE Dirham (AED) with the US$ for the past 20 years. Click this link http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
Please do some research – FYI the Hong Kong$ and S’pore $ is also pegged to the US$. It’s a choice made by the country who chooses to do so, not the US.
Furthermore, if the U.A.E. operates these six American ports, they will be doing it for profit. That profit will undoubteldy be spent on some of Osama bin Ladens activities. You might recall that George Tenet, former director of the C.I.A, said that they couldn’t kill bin Laden because he was at a meeting with the royal family from the U.A.E. Maybe they were just having tea.
Also if you didn’t know already, the despotic rulers of the middle east stay in power by funding a certain degree of terrorist activities. When they stop bin Laden strikes them, as he did recently in Saudi Arabia.
I know you think that we are just a bunch of stupid Americans, and Dubai should be allowed to own and operate the U.S. military as well, but please don’t insult my intelligence by making up your own facts and figures. And I hate to resort to the old redneck adage, but if you love Dubai so much, why aren’t you living there?
I am not even going to respond to you last paragraph…..once you see the facts minus your emotions you’ll know why.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:26 amTo John Sinclair -I would not consider this debate and a sincere concern over security STUPID. I don’t have the luxury of living in Utah or North Dakota or some such remote area. I live in Ft Lauderdale about 30 miles from a permenant sunburn when and if the big OOPS does come along and a dirty bomb makes its way here. If the worst did happen I’m sorry but I don’t think cancelling the contract at that point will satisfy me. So, because I love my family and friends a lot more than I care about the the sensitivities of anyone from the Gulf Region I say thanks but no thanks, and the arguemnent that we outsourced to the UK doesn’t wash either, last time I looked the UK was fighting beside us. Pardon me if I’d would prefer that these decisions not be made in a secret committee (the White House is now trying to say they didn’t know about until after the fact??) That Congress & Senate are in the loop (you know the guys who represent the citizens).Also a for this whole thing to blow up in our faces it doesn’t have to be a bomb they will be handling operations of six of our major ports. Any disruption of OPERATIONS could also be catastrophic. SO go ahead call me a bigot or a fearmonger, I’d rather be a live fearmonger than a dead optimist. As an aside, nearly a month ago I was talking to an Italian artist who is doing work on a big project in Dubai and he was telling me how they are not all that crazy about Americans there. Interesting observation.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 amJames Carroll - given your comments (and blind Paranoia of bombs heading into your home from a Dubai Ship) and based on many other comments on this site – perhaps you can see why most folks in Dubai don’t think too “highly” of Americans, get out there and see the world and stop living your only life as a “fearmonger”
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:49 amHow can you deny that terror ties should be a concern, when George Tenet, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., and the 9/11 Comission all said that the United Arab Emirates did not comply with U.S. requests for bin Ladens bank account information, and that they had a significant role in the 9/11 attacks? I have no idea whether they have terror ties or not, but I think that if all those government agencies have said that they do, I don’t believe that the U.A.E. changed overnight. Thats proposterous. It also seems equally rediculous that the director of Homeland Security, which is a fledgling agency, can tell us with a straight face that the U.A.E. has suddenly become the most pro-U.S., anti-terrorist country in the world. And for the president to use his veto power for the first time in sx years to allow a foreign company to buy American ports stinks of greed. Also any company that OPERATES the ports manages what containers can be placed on which ship, and is in charge of managing the shipping manifests. Let me lay it out simply. If you write the ships manifests, a ship with uranium or anthrax can be labeled as a corn shipment. With 1 in 20 containers being physically inspected, that is too big of a role to place in the hands of a company that is owned by a government with questionable links to terrorists.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmFACE IT THE U.A.E. SHOULD NOT BE FIRST ON THE LIST, THEY SHOULD BE THE LAST. AMERCICANS DON’T WANT THE U.A.E. MANAGING OUR PORTS. OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT OR FOR THE CONGRESS, IT IS OF AND BY THE PEOPLE. IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS VETO POWER AMERICANS WILL GATHER BY THE THOUSANDS TO PHYSICALLY TAKEOVER THE PORTS. CALL IT
Listen people, I’m 15 and i know this is for the good. You libs out there who are all crazed obviously haven’t done your homework. Yuo see Dubai won’t control the whole port only a select number of terminals in each port. That and the US coastguard is still in control of physical security and the Customs checks the containers. Also Dubai has agreed to comply with all the security requests we have made. So stop believing everything you here on Fox and Cnn and do some research before developing an opinion.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pmThank you.
Adam
Rashall you just proved my point. Most folks in Dubai don’t think too highly of Americans. In fact most Muslims in the middle east consider America the great satan, so I think you guys can do without the privelege of running our ports. And if you think more highly of Dubai, I’m not really sure why you have a rightful place in this debate. After all if worse comes to worse I’m sure you’l be on a jet airplane back over there. As for myself I’d rather piss off a few people from Dubai than see a dirty bomb go off in New York Harbor
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmYou know what John – I don’t blame you, for all your thoughts expressed above. Because it was the Bush admin that fed the “Arab Boogey man” paranoia to all Americans and the majortiy bought it. It is also really sad, many Americans are, to be honest, simply “ignorant” i.e. HAVE NO CLUE on the countries and cultures that make up the ME region. Anything Arab equates to “terror”. The closest “ally” the UK had terror ties too to 9/11, there were British citizens involved in 9/11, but the UK company P&O managed the ports since late 1999 – did you see a bomb heading your way?
“FACE IT THE U.A.E. SHOULD NOT BE FIRST ON THE LIST, THEY SHOULD BE THE LAST. AMERCICANS DON’T WANT THE U.A.E. MANAGING OUR PORTS. OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT OR FOR THE CONGRESS, IT IS OF AND BY THE PEOPLE. IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS VETO POWER AMERICANS WILL GATHER BY THE THOUSANDS TO PHYSICALLY TAKEOVER THE PORTS. CALL IT?
There are several countries whose citizens do not want American companies doing business with them and/or taking over their businesses and assets (take a look at American acquistions around the world the past 5 years). This is a global economy, hence by the same token, you or I cannot STOP businesses with the UAE (inspite of the UAE’s strong business relations with US, just because the UAE is associated with 9/11 and are Arabs. Hell countries like Germany, France, the UK, good ol Canada and pristine Singapore by that means were associated with 9/11. What do you propose, we stop trade and business with all these countries and live in “fear” – then dear American, OBL & croonies have won!
John, all I am saying is – get the “facts” on this deal, get the “facts” on Dubai and the UAE. I for one, would not be spending precious time debating on this issue, if I truly did not see the good that can come out of this.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 pmAdam, the coast guard has a very limited amount of physical resources. You see this is the folly that many good-hearted Americans fall into. They think we have an omnipotent military and coast guard, which unfortunately we don’t (as you saw on September 11th). Whens the last time you saw a coast guard cutter pulling up next to a container ship? If the ships manifests check out, on one container out of 20, anything can come in. The Coast guards job is going after drug runners and pirates. That usually excludes container ships. If Dubai operates the port, they control the manifests, and the postition of caontainers. The company may look good on paper, but if someone in the company has their loyalites in the wrong place, they could place the containers in such a fashion as to discourage the inspection of containers filled with nuclear or biological weapons. Its not paranoia its simple fact. Also if an attack did take place on a U.S. port it would have a devestating effect on foreign investment and commerce, which is about the only thing keeping us out of a recession right now. All it takes is that magic word “nuclear” and nomatter how small the loss of life, there will be a dramatic effect on the American economy.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:22 pmPerhaps so John – that would also mean the end of Dubai and the UAE as a country! Which is why the Bush folks have placed more controls and procedures on this company than other companies with similar trade.
Do you think these ppl would invest $7 BILLION so that they can sit back , relax and see a bomb go off at NYC harbor?? Would you please do some research on Dubai and the UAE, before you assume the WORST WORST scenario possible – WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES YOU ASSUME THE WORST WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ALL ARABS???
Below is what Andre Agassi – a successful American athlete described the Dubai Tennis Championships and Dubai. He has been playing the tournament the past several years. He says it has one of the most unique and pleasurable experiences of his tennis career.
“Dubai is something I would look forward to sharing with my wife and family,†he said. “It’s an incredible place to see and to visit for so many reasons. To see what they’ve built here is really a reflection of a lot of vision, a lot of passion, not to mention the cultures that live peacefully together. It’s the way the world is meant to be.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:31 pmThe concerns over the port takeover are based on facts. You keep citing this unfounded fear that I have. An unfounded fear based on
-George Tenet citing meetings between the U.A.E. royal family and Osama bin Laden
-Extensive financing and passports obtained through the U.A.E.
-extensive anti-American sentiment held by many people living in the U.A.E.
-The F.B.I. said that that the U.A.E. government and banks stonewalled their investigation into bin Ladens bank accounts
-some funds from Dubai Worlds profits will pass into the royal bank accounts which likely are tied to O.B.L. At the very least we are funding terror.
Furthermore, even if the government, and Dubai World Ports is “oficially” freindly with the United States, all it takes is one person in the right place, employed by Dubai Ports to doctor up shipping manifests or to place a container in a discreet place aboard a ship, and the worst could happen. Saudi Arabia is officially freindly with the nited States, as is Yemen, but we still suffered the 9/11 attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack because of some bad apples in the right positions of power who looked the other way. And if even 1 out of 1000 employees of Dubai Ports World are sympathetic to bin Laden, that is too big of a chance to take. and in the middle east thats a very conservative estimate
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pmIm not being bigotted about all Arabs, but you have to consider fact. And I believe that being conerned about the security American ports is not being bigotted its being pragamatic and sane.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:36 pmJust for the record -
AA Flight 175 – South Tower, WTC
Marwan Al Shehhi – United Arab Emirates
Fayez al-Hamadi – United Arab Emirates
AA Flight 93 – Crashed in Pennsylvania
Ahmed I.A. Al Haznawi – United Arab Emirates
Most of the terrorists were, of course, from Saudi Arabia, theoretically another “U.S. Ally”, Egypt and Lebanon.
Is this a good idea? I don’t know. I’m just a simple man trying to protect his family in a crazy changing world. On the surface it doesn’t appear to make much sense, but then again, I don’t have all the facts, and probably will never be privy to them.
Thanks for letting me post my comment. Nice forum.
Best to all.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pmRoshan, you do know that bin Laden and the United States were long time allies as well right? Shakespeare once said: “tis’ time to tremble when tyrants seem to kiss” The money trail from the U.A.E. to bin Laden is strong enough you could follow your nose all the way to that wretched cave where bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan, protected by the incopetence and national sovereignty of another “important ally in the war on terror”. I dont trust any supposed Arab ally with port security. Fact: the two biggest allies of the U.S. in the 1980’s were Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Look where trusting them got us. I would also encourage you to look at the facts in my last post before you tell me my fear is unfounded and bigotted towards all Arabs
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pmOK Nick – just for the record: Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh who admitted setting the bomb that killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City.
Hence am I to assume 2 misguided souls from the UAE equate to all of UAE as terrorists and by the same logic one Timothy McVeigh equates to most Americans are killers?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:55 pmhey Roshan why don’t you respond to my posts 403 -406? How much is Dubai Ports paying you anyway? It isn’t nearly enough. Go get a cheeseburger or something. Its one of the wonders of the American way :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmHey just so everyone knows, Dubai Ports just paid former Pres. candidate Bob Dole to represent them on the hill.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:06 pmJohn – terrorists funding was transferred using banks from several countries across several countries. These guys even duped the INS into issuing them Visas into the US. You have to understand Dubai is the financial center of the ME region, just like S’pore for most of APAC. George Tennet also said Iraq had WMD’s didn’t he? Again you have to do some research on UAE. The UAE is like Switzerland, in the ME region. They hold a neutral position in almost all instances.
This comment takes the cake “some funds from Dubai Worlds profits will pass into the royal bank accounts which likely are tied to O.B.L. At the very least we are funding terror.”
I am so sorry, it just shows how little you know about Dubai world ports, the security measures by the Dubai government. There is very little you know on how Dubai, a western lifestyle oriented, modern and liberal Arab city and the UAE are doing to protect their borders. For eg: do you know Emirates Airline (the Airline from Dubai) flies every day direct from Dubai into JFK. Do you know the extent of security measures in place for this flight amongst others in the UAE.
Do you know thousands of our soldiers embark in Dubai as it is biggest liberty port in the world for US sailors. Do you know American sports personalities from Tiger woods to Tennis professionals play in Dubai sport events. Do some research and take a step back – look at the bigger picture please.
I am completely onboard with you, when you say you do not want another 9/11 – however that should not stop us from progeressing and growing in this world. I thought this website is called “Think Progress”?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 pmNo thank you John – I am having a tuna melt today :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmRoshan,
Good point.
Like I said. I am a simple working man just trying to understand a complex issue causing concern for my family’s safety. Do I think the entire UAE supports terrorists. No, of course not. Do they have ties with terrorists. Certain facts seem to say so.
The ultimate truth is, there are good and bad people no matter where you go. We are our own best friend and worst enemy. Nature of mankind I suppose.
In response to your Timothy McVey example, – If any of Timothy McVey’s friends/associates asked for the keys to my house, I might have some reservations. Knowing what I know about the group he associated with, I know that some of them are a highly unstable and dangerous fraction of our society…so I would proceed with extreme caution in any dealings with these people. That goes for anyone with a track record of hatred and violence.
I’m not looking for a fight here, just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff so I can do whats best for my family. I would assume you would do the same.
Kind regards.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:16 pmThen you’re not denying that the U.A.E royal family met with bin Laden. Look Saudi Arabia was host to American airbases in the first Gulf War, that doesn’t mean they completely check out. Part of the global game is playing along with the superpower when their watching, then stabbing them in the back when their not. Saudi Arabia for example hires the finest American politicains and spokespeople to present a positive image to the public. Sporting events are a similar ploy. Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics for Christ’s sake. Look what he did behind everyones backs. Is Dubai a progressive Arab country: yes. But they shouldn’t be trusted with port security given their significant (not tangential) ties to terror funding. If bin Laden just happened to open one of many bank accounts in Dubai, why is it they stonewalled the F.B.I.’s investigation?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:19 pmAlso Tenet resigned, partially due to disagreement with the Administration on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but if you want to get on that point, Saddams top general and many confidents,mand Israeli intelligence say they were moved to Syria with help of the Russians. And It wasn’t just George Tenet who said that U.A.E. was incompliant in the war on terror. It was the F.B.I. and the 9/11 Comission, so unless you have some source of information i don’t know about I think you must digress:)
tuna melt sounds good. Tuna and a healthy debate Alright!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm[...] I thought our policy was to limit dealings with nations that support terrorism. This is actually a state-owned company. They may be allies in some ways, but they do have troubling involvement with international terrorism, including: [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pmRoshan you also meantioned the UAE’s tough border security measures. Don’t you think American’s have the right to the same security?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmResponse to Rosham:
We are not talking about hypothetics or generalizations here, we are talking about specifics – facts such as that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai, the money to finance the operation was laundered through Dubai, Dubai was one of only three countries that recognized the oppressive Taliban as legitimate government, and A.Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear arms dealer, used Dubai as a reliable transit point en route to Libya and Iran for delivering banned nuclear technology to both countries.
As everyone knows, out of that transaction, came the ensuing Iran’s nuclear issue, a sticky situation that now threatens world peace and stability. The fact is that Dubai has tacitly become a trading post of contrabands – a key smuggling outpost, so to speak. This is a common understanding across the globe, from Nigeria to China, from Egypt to Taiwan, etc.
Your comment “America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists†dissappear???” is totally disingenuous and illogical. Just because two people or two countries are trading partners does not mean one has to buy everything the other sells. Your argument suggests that if one declines to buy any one particular good that the other offers; that means that country has never bought from the other and that implies the two countries are not trading partners and never have been.
On the contrary, America and the UAE are engaged in countless other trades and those have never been at issue. It is dishonest to pretend that you don’t recognize the issue here or that the concerns Americans have are unwarranted.
Think of the difficulties the coalition forces are facing in Iraq, where terrorists infiltrate the police force and the military to gain information to aid them in terrorist plots and to carryout those plots. Everyone knows how destructive that has been to Iraq, in the number of lives that have been destroyed and how it has virtually crippled the reconstruction process.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pmI think the point slowtrain is trying to make is that it is relatively easier for determined terrorists to breach security procedures where there is more sympathy towards their cause or where there are more people that support their cause. This is precisely why it has proven so difficult to capture Osama bin Laden or Abu Massad Al-Zakawi.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmconcerned_citizen, if I may add to your comments; that is precisely why Zakawi’s attacks in Iraq have been so well coordinated and have proven extremely difficult to preemptively stop. He has more people in Iraq that share his cause and sympathize with him as to shelter and aid him, than in, say Britain, France or any European country.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmand just imagine that same scenario with a company that runs American ports. All it takes is one sympathizer, or Al Qaeda operative in the right postition, and they can sneak in a nuclear or biological weapon, and label the ships manifest as “corn bread”. And sometimes it doesn’t take someone to help, sometimes all it takes is someone to look the other way. What do you guys think about the Fed’s buying up the right to operate the ports? Just like the fed’s controlling airline security. I just think its better to be safe than sorry. I’m not a big fan of the governmnent running things, but after 9/11 it would certainly be better than giving operational control to Dubai.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:26 pmAs I watch Bush supporters pull a 180 and go from Arab haters to being pro Arab, I have to chuckle. The only motivation strong enough to turn an Arab hating Bushista into wanting to jump into bed with the UAE, a country known for it’s ties to terrorism and Bin Laden is money. Bush and his gang are the greediest son’s a bitches this country has ever seen. In 2003 Bush lied about WMD’s to justify a war against Iraq. When the truth finally came out, Bush fell back on the excuse that Saddam committed human rights violations. But when we start digging into the UAE, we find they committ human rights violations as well; trading women and children as slaves, laundering money, harboring terrorists, and the list goes of DUBAI/UAE corruption goes on. Dubai/UAE does not have a democratically elected government with enforced protections in place for it’s citizens or the people it enslaves. This flies in the face of everything Bush supposedly stood for when he justified invading Iraq? Why the double standards? Obviously the UAE has enough money to line the pockets of Bush and his gang. And to top it all off, Bush supporters, the most racist bunch of people in America have the gaul to call people opposed to this dirty deal with UAE racist. Republicans will stoop to any level for money and for their false Bush god. A Republican would steal your wallet and when you caught him doing it, he’d lie and say you stole it from him in the first place. What an embarassment to the human race you Bush supporters are, parroting every lying word the Bush administration utters. Grow a brain and while you’re at it, grow some ethics. The American people will never stand for Bush’s under the table dirty deals with his criminal pals in the UAE, no matter how much you people try to spin the story or call us racist. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice…”can’t get fooled again.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:16 pmcantgetfooled again- You bring aup a couple of good points, but you’re really painting with a broad brush-so to speak. Most people voted for Bush because they felt he was the less of two evils, not because they supported the everything he does. John Kerry would have stayed in Iraq anyway, and many people look at the things he did back during the Vietnam War (turning in his medals and such) with disgust. Its rediculous in America that we only have the choice between two candidates. If we had a viable third candidate, then I don’t think Bush would be in power today. You’re really getting too caught up in the two party way of thinking. The simple fact is that most people on either side of the isle go have lunch together after they are done pretending that they are on opposite sides. We have an oligarchy run by the ultra-rich globalists. Thats why Bush has a deaf ear towards Americans who want to stop this deal. He got what he needed out of us. Votes. It just takes too much money to run nowadays.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:33 pmSteady, good people, steady! Don’t get pulled off-track by preexisting passionate sentiments, keep your eyes and hands on the relevant issue, rather than falling into partisan bickering. Spend energy on the real issue not on some sentimental hangovers that only distracts from the real issue. Remember, the issue is the merits or lack thereof of outsourcing the running of the ports in question to UAE, speak to that, good people. Leave the partisan stuff to a less urgent time, please.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pmJohn, many people look back on the Vietnam war with disgust and many people consider Kerry a hero for sacrificing his ata boy trinket medals for participating in the killing of the Vietnamese people. Likewise, there is nothing heroic about killing innocent people in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. You presume what Kerry would do if he was in office. Maybe he would’ve followed the same course of action as Bush, and maybe he wouldn’t have. Either way the point is moot. Bush is the one calling the shots, not Kerry or Clinton, or any other hypothetical Democrat Republicans have a habit of shifting the focus toward. We’re not dealing in hypotheticals. We know Bush is a dirty rotten scoundrel. We know the UAE committs human rights violations. We know that on any given Sunday, Bush will support the villain with the most money and condemn anyone that refuses to deal to death. American doesn’t want to make a deal with Dubai and wake up the next day finding out Dubai is our new found enemy like Saddam, Noriega, or any one else the Bush crime family broke deals with. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…”can’t get fooled again.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:52 pmso what about U.S. government run operation of ports. Solution or no slowtrain?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:53 pmyes weve established that this is a sell out, and that Dubai shouldn’t be running American ports. While i disagree with your view on Kerry, I want to stay on subject. I think we should turn our attention to what should be done. I think the Federal government should run the port operations since they are such a high-level security risk. I mean quite franky, I didn’t even know a British company was running some of our ports until this scandal erupted. Its becoming opbivous that the American people need to get more involved in their government
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmResponse to slowtrain:
“facts such as that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai, the money to finance the operation was laundered through Dubai, Dubai was one of only three countries that recognized the oppressive Taliban as legitimate government, and A.Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear arms dealer, used Dubai as a reliable transit point en route to Libya and Iran for delivering banned nuclear technology to both countries”
No one denies two of the hijackers came from the UAE. Monies to finance to 9/11 were laundered through Dubai, Germany, Singapore, the UK and the US – some of the banks used were American banks. Dubai is the financial center of the Middle East.
“As everyone knows, out of that transaction, came the ensuing Iran’s nuclear issue, a sticky situation that now threatens world peace and stability. The fact is that Dubai has tacitly become a trading post of contrabands – a key smuggling outpost, so to speak. This is a common understanding across the globe, from Nigeria to China, from Egypt to Taiwan, etc.”
Trading of contrabands is illegal in the UAE, punishable by law.
Your comment “America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists†dissappear???†is totally disingenuous and illogical. Just because two people or two countries are trading partners does not mean one has to buy everything the other sells. Your argument suggests that if one declines to buy any one particular good that the other offers; that means that country has never bought from the other and that implies the two countries are not trading partners and never have been.
Nice way to twist words, however I did not say or imply what you say above.
“On the contrary, America and the UAE are engaged in countless other trades and those have never been at issue. It is dishonest to pretend that you don’t recognize the issue here or that the concerns Americans have are unwarranted.”
Again, I am not oblivious to the trade between these two countries and never denied it either. I never “pretended” to ignore the issue several Americans raised on this topic, else I wouldn’t be on this site debating with you.
All I am trying to do is bring some “awareness” to most people. By no means, I am a fan of the UAE or Dubai. However, when I see us spreading across the globe promoting the concept of democracy and the American way of life, and yet when the most modern, liberal and ambitious Arab city and nation approaches with a genuiune business proposition -all we can think about is terrorism and we yell terrorists terrorists! We continue to link whole of UAE population, the banking system and trade to 9/11 and terrorism. To the outside world, it just shows how much we know apples from pancakes when it comes to Middle East Countries and cultures.
“Think of the difficulties the coalition forces are facing in Iraq, where terrorists infiltrate the police force and the military to gain information to aid them in terrorist plots and to carryout those plots. Everyone knows how destructive that has been to Iraq, in the number of lives that have been destroyed and how it has virtually crippled the reconstruction process.”
Here we go again – lets blame Dubai and the UAE because of Iraq, hell let me blame Dubai because it is a cloudy day in NYC and I prefer the Sun. Please check your facts and look at things from an honest perspective. No country is perfect, perhaps we are the ones with the most imperfections, but I can certainly say, we as a nation address those and corrects them going forward. The world is becoming smaller, it is a global economy, no matter what. If we deny DP world this business proposition, when in fact most foreign countries have APPROVED the P&O deal (you see P&O operates globally, most of the other countries where P&O conducted business has been approved by the governments) we are sending all involved an unhealthy message. I still face to see, why you cannot see beyond the “terrorism” fear – hell it takes a dishonest man from the FBI to put this country in trouble – how can we keep living if ppl think this way??? Think for a moment – do you think DP world will invest nearly $7 bliion and sit back, waiting for a bomb to go off at NYC harbor. Do you even know what harm that will do to a country like Dubai or the UAE. A country that truly has developed to one of the most modern ones in the world. Do you really think they want to destroy all the investments they have made worldwide and within. No place is perfect, even we are not perfect, but that’s not stopping us from becoming a better success does it?
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pmRoshan you are trying to dissacociate the government of the United Arab Emirates and Septemeber 11th. Its not working. I know you want us to adopt this rosy view of that country, but its all an illusion. Of course they claim to cooperate after 9/11 because noone wants to get blasted back into the stone age. The fact is they bankrolled terrorists up until 9/11 and since the F.B.I. has not been allowed to conduct an investigation into Osama bin Laden’s bank accounts in Dubai, we have no reasonable assurance that they aren’t bankrolling him now. It is also very disturbing that the Royal Family was having face to face meetings with Bin Laden. What i’m supposed to disregard cold hard fact because Andres Agasi says its a nice place to visit with his family?! You must be a lunatic. Stop thinking the American people are gonna swallow this! Its similar to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, sinking the Arizona, then giving them salvage rights, and letting them run the harbor. Its Insanity!
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmJohn, you’re 100 percent correct. The federal government should run the port operations and the American people need to take back America.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmWhy is it you keep refering to yourself and the U.A.E. as we? Who are you representing? It must not be America
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:19 pmAlso you may find the below interesting….
Foreign-owned companies operate many ports in the United States. For example, in Los Angeles, California, companies from China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan lease operations.
Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, said the company “will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals.”
Bilkey said U.S. customs officers in Dubai inspect cargo containers headed for American ports as part of a port-security effort his company supports.
“We have given them the sovereign right to inspect any container they wish to before it’s loaded on a vessel,” he said, calling fears that officials would turn a blind eye to terrorists “nonsense.”
“Security now in our business is a marketing tool,” he said. “The shipping companies want to know that you run a secure operation.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:20 pmJohn, the prospects of the U.S. government taking over ports operation is a reasonable one and far better than that of the UAE. However, it reminds of the DCFS taking away a child from an abusive home, for the child’s safety. The action in of itself alone does not guarantee the child’s safety, as that child may end up in another abusive home or on the streets. All things considered, it is by far a better option, for the government to takeover, as you suggested, after all, the TSA will be doing much of the security.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmDear John and “Slowtrain” – I cannot change your chain of thought, only bring as much awareness I can. I went thru 9/11 in NYC. I am also someone who’s had the opportunity to grow up in the Middle east, Africa, the UK Canada and the US. The opportunity gave me an insight and exposure to countries and cultures I may have missed out if I only lived in the US.
I respect your thoughts and opinion, however I am not going to FORCE you to change them, this is America. I only hope, going forward, you can see beyond reason.
ps: we means “USA”
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pmroshan I don’t believe the United States should reward terrorist governments. Period. I could give a hooting hell if they have security measures or not. Its like letting Bin Laden run an airport bacause he agreed to let the U.S. run the metal detectors. The U.A.E. has a lot of blood on their hands for September 11th. Im not saying their the only country, but their part of the problem. I’d sooner reward them with a flight of B-52’s overhead then a deal giving over six of our ports. Terrorists are surrogate fighters sponsored by “legitemate” governments. Am I the only one who feels this way?
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:27 pmjust venting by the way:)
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pmRoshan, again your argument dwells excessively on wild generalizations. We are talking about a very specific and qualified issue here. Every country has vulnerability, in light of their experience, history, and situation, hence it is in the national interest of each country to exercise caution and to make every reasonably effort to protect itself and not expose itself to sources prone to potential danger. The danger America faces may not be the danger any other country faces, and vice versa. Hence, it is illogical to expect the same response in all cases.
In the investigations that followed the 9/11 attack, everyone seemed to blame the administration for not acting on the information it has on some of the hijackers, however incomplete it was. On is part, the government argued that the information were not specific enough. Those who forget history, essentially commit to making the same mistake twice or for as long as they fail to learn from history.
Give Americans the courtesy of choosing the best way to ensure their own security, even if it is only symbolic, which in this case, it is definitely not.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:50 pmJohn, Slowtrain…
Please forgive me, but, I am obviously not as well versed in the interational politics and the full operational jurisdiction of our government where our ports are concerned.
Wouldn’t the Government (Feds) have to declare some sort of Martial Law to intervene at the private sector level to assume full control of the ports? I’m not saying it’s a bad , or good, idea, I’m just trying to understand what would occur if this was to take place.
By the way, I hope that whatever the solution is to this issue that typical folks like myself can rest assured that we have not compromised our safety just for a nice business deal. That would stink.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 pmOK folks – I am a strong believer in the saying “Whatever happens, happens for the better” Whichever way this issue goes – let us hope it is for the better. Amen to that.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:54 pmThis agreement states that DBWorld is not required to keep business records on U.S. soil. Whats the deal with that? How are we going to audit their taxes? What if I am a terrorist intent on lighting the fuse to WWIII? I use false credintials to get through their internal security and get a job. Now the U.S. government cant even get a hold of my job application? Brilliant!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 pmI’m not sure what it would take, but I know that the government took over airline safety, and the hiring of security personel at airports. I imagine firms presently owning or operating ports would have to be given compensation. There would definitely have to be a bill passed by congress I imagine. Its also possible they could invoke imminent domain, citing public safety and national security concerns. I’m not totally sure. Its just the best idea i could think of.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 pmRoshan, I am sorry, I disagree on that too. “Whatever happens, happens for the better†is a fatalistic philosophy, as empty as hakuna mata ta (a problem free philosophy) :) All the best; funny…I feel like I know you already.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:05 pmI think in addition, there should be a congressional comitee
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:11 pmon on port security, (where we acutally know who is on it and can vote them in or out). I also think it wouldn’t be a bad thing for any large scale transfer of (beyond a certain billions of dollars) essential assets (power, communication, national defense) on American soil to a foreign government to pass a congressional review. Most Americans are just now waking up to how much of America isn’t really American:) Do I think America should be socialist? Of course not, but certain essential elements to the smooth transaction of business and well being, should be under control of the government. Power is a good example, as is National Defense, Ports, Airports and the like. I won’t touch Healthcare (hot-button issue lol).
Roshan I definitely appreciate your perspective, but i don’t think well ever see eye to eye on this one. its been cool talking though.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:19 pmSame here mates, take care and keep well :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:21 pmHow much of America isn’t American? How’s this senerio, China threatens to cash in all of its U.S.treasury notes. The only way we could possibly pay them off would be to print so much money that the dollar would be worthless. Instead, after long negotiations, We give them Texas. (they wanted California.) It;s a win-win deal!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:25 pmnaw just give ‘em all their cheap crap back:)
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:30 pmis this thing on?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:31 pmthats a lot of cheep crap. speaking of texas, has anyone looked for osama bin laden at the bush ranch?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:35 pmI’m signing off john, you;ll have to talk to yourself.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmFirst lets clear up a misconception…SECURITY IS NOT BEING TURNED OVER!! That is the responsibility of the Coast Gaurd and Customs, always has been and always will be!! The whole issue is based in racism. The racists will say “Oh no it’s not because they are Arab! It’s differnt because it is another countries goverment that has control of the company!” Wake up people China already owns port operations in America. Take a deep breath people! If you wonder why the Arab community hates America this would be one shining example. Radical Muslims are a minorty overall. Yep most people of any religion just want to raise there kids and die in peace. We have our share of radical Christians (Serbia is a good example or the abortion doctor killings if you prefer) Heck we even have radical atheiests whom would love to impose their view over anyone who believes in God. Every society, religion and race has its share of people worthy of sainthood and its share of a@#holes. Bottom line its racism and until we can get past that we will never have peace with the Arabs of the world. May as well declare your Holy War now and be done with it!!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:41 pmHey pd, we know where old Osama is hiding, its just that we are not allowed to go and get him, for the same reason that we don’t want the U.A.E to run our ports – the solidarity he enjoys with many people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.A.E, all of which by the way, are partners in the global war on terror. But I can tell you, he is not in Texas, the aroma of a juicy steak on a grill would be too much temptation to come out of his hole.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmGet Real Dennis. If Arab’s hate America its because America just dropped 500,000 tons of depleted uranium all over the middle east and their children are deformed from playing in tank wreckage radiated by the impact of DU shells. If Arab’s hate America its because America Arab’s know greedy American assholes like Bush would kill every man, woman, and child that stood in his way of controlling the oil in the middle east. IF Arab’s hate American its because America keeps sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong, starting illegal wars and occupying whats left of their blown up cities. Obviously Dubai and the UAE has a deal worked out with Bush to keep him off their backs. That said, given how pissed off Arab world has every right to be, I don’t want to see the control of US ports outsourced to anyone, especially the friends of Bin Laden and Bush. You can play that race card all day baby but we all know that Bush’s constituency primarily consists of red state red necks, not people of color. Get Real, no one is buying your Bush spin.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmslowtrain. thats my point. he’s probably enjoying a nice steak with george and dick right now. And their all laughing at us.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 pmGetReal Look man, you dont have to sugar coat it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pmResponse to GetReal:
What exactly are you talking about? You are in essence making this a race issue and please don’t refer to any people as “people of color”, even your own constituency.
Regards.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 pmSo “Get Real” if what your saying is true about Bush…why is it that the are still breathing men women and children in the Middle East? Your hate for Bush leads you to distort the truth. As far as some deal with Bush and the UAE. Bush didn’t even know about the deal until he saw it on the news. Yep a bit incompatent almost laughable…..but it really puts holes in you sinister conspiracy theories.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:22 pmGet Real Dennis. If you really think Bush didn’t know about the deal with Dubai you’re dumber than a Son of a Bush. And if Bush really didn’t know about the deal that means he really is a dumb son of a Bush like you and the rest of his son of Bush followers. Get real!
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:32 pmHey “Get Real” sorry to let you down, I am not as you say a Son of a Bush follower. But it is easier for a person with such anger as yourself to attack before you understand. I actualy didn’t vote in the last election for the first time in 20 years. I didn’t think either canidate was qualified to be president. So, where are you? Is Bush an evil genius or a dumb ass? Or do you just argue whichever way that suits you for the occasion with no firm belief of either position? Take a deep breath…say Ohmmm or something. Your hate will give you high blood prassure.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:43 pmGet real Dennis. If it walks like a Son of a Bush, talks like a Son of a Bush, you’re a Son of a Bush Dennis. As for that Son of a Bush, Bush, he’s just an Evil, Dumb, Son of a Bush! Get Real you Son of a Bush!
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 pmWell….thats an interesting comment. They used to say something like that in the south about 40 years ago and in Germany about 60 years ago, different subject but all the same thing. You might have been born out of your time “Get Real” Hate is the biggest wall to peace and your just another brink in the wall (huh, first time I ever used that in a sentance…Roger Waters would be proud).
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 pmJust the facts, ma’am . . .
First: What is it that running a port requires one to do? Who gets what in this multi-billion dollar deal, exactly? Strange if that wouldn’t have direct bearing on security-related concerns, but so far, no one has answered that question to my satisfaction.
Second: UAE is a country that this administration’s Treasury Dept has stated did not satisfactorily cooperate in the USA’s Post-9/11 inquiries, and it has aided in the transfer of nuclear materials to and between third-world countries. Scary.
Fact: Sheik Zayed wants to modernize the UAE,and apparently does not support terrorism. Good. But his government recognizes the Taliban. Bad. Characterizing Arabs as a group as being a security risk is a ridiculous but pretty popular pasttime these days. (Then there’s this weird fact that Zayed’s father arranged financing for Pres. Bush’s oil company, Arbusto in the 80’s) (Hmmmm).
However, at this time there doesn’t seem to be proof that this is part of the elites-deal-making-with-elites world in which we live.
Bottom line: need more info, but it’s got a weird and scary feel to it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmGet real Dennis, you Son of a Bush. 60 years ago in Germany they were talking about that Son of a Bush, Prescott Bush. He made a deal with the Germans just like that Son of a Bush, George Bush is trying to do with Dubai. You really are a misguided Son of a Bush aren’t you Dennis?
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmI think that is a very poor idea. By opening our ports, we may as well give up the country now. They WILL take over. How stupid are the people running this country? For the people, yeah what people – not the people born here! May as well put up a sign – take me now, we’re stupid enough to let you in.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 pmThe American Indians feel your pain Mary Ann!
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pmGet Real Dennis, those Son’s a Bush’s killed off most of the American Indians. Now that Son of Bush, George Bush wants to outsource the ports to Dubai so he can finish the job.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 pmOk, so the Americans have army bases all over the Muslim world and if a company in Dubai (Americans have an army base there too) wants to do business and run a few American ports, why is everybody up in arms? So what if two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE? It’s like the Pakistani government saying, “I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americans”. This goes to show the ignorance in the American government. I guarantee you that the people who are against this deal were not even able to point to the UAE on the map before 9/11. To those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pmUAE ARE NOT ALL TERRORISTS YOU DUMB IGNORANT LOSERS! You generalize. GOOD GOD. The real terrorists are FOX news and GOP. LOOK AT THE FUCKING DEFINTION OF A TERRORIST.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:45 pm“suck on a big bowl of my nuts” = Nobody is saying that the “UAE ARE ALL TERRORISTS”….theyre saying that they do NOT want to give ANY more control over the USA to a foreign government, especially in a deal that has little transparency and was financed using sukuk. Sukuk means when DP World IPO’s, that ANYBODY with money will become a shareholder and have a voice in how the ports are run by DP World – because we ALL know, those that have the most shares get the loudest voice.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 pmI think George Dubai Bush’s handing control of the ports to the United Arab Emerits is a BRILLIANT idea. He’s already been threatening the Veto thing (shows great content of character and objective listening) in his support for the secret deal of which he just found out of a few days before it went public. (wink wink) Since Condolleezzaa Rriiccee changed jobs, we’ve seen a marked change in George Dubai Bush’s job rating. He seems sadly misinformed and out of the loop, the last to know and the first in line to forcefully defend anything that crosses his desk or his mind. It’s the REAL George Dubai Bush.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pmAnd so, Like his father before him, we must watch him crumble in the last years of his administration and fade back into private seclusion on the ranch. While those that follow must scramble to pay for his mistakes, misdeeds, and outright lies. I think the mess he’s made will take at LEAST 16 years of hard work and sacrifice to break even.
So now we can proove as a nation that we are NOT anti arab bigots like those evil danish satire cartoonists. We must adopt Muslim curriculae and traditions in our schools, we must learn their language, and build new mosques for them on the east coast to begin with.
So George Dubai, in one fell swoop, has just shredded the roadmap to peace in the middle east. Perhaps we can toss some no bid contracts to the new Democratically elected Hamas Government in Palestine, you know, to really prove we’re not anti arab bigots. Suddenly, the arab world is our ally. How many of the UAE’s youth have been injured or died by the side of our brothers sisters and children on George Dubai Bush’s Iraq Mission to rid them of weapons of mass distruction and establish a democratic government? How much money have they given to further our cause, our fight against terrorism? More or Less than Great Britain? And why do they deserve this port contract over other countries? Why was the deal done in secrecy before the President, or Congress ever knew?
It’s just sad that we have to fight for our guaranteed freedoms because the constitution now means nothing. America is not failing miserably, Our government is failing Us miserably. Please don’t confuse the two. We are stronger than they believe we are.
Feel the Xenophobia!!! Wow!!! Scratch an American “progressive” and it turns out they’re just as much crackers as the open variety.
Look, Timothy McVeigh was American, and a terrorist. Does that mean the rest of the world should reject US investment for security reasons.
Why is it that people (even pretend progressives) only attack Bush from the right, not the left? America, I weep for you …
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pmWhat the Main Stream Media is not reporting is that there is a huge connection between the DP World Port deal and the recent aquisition of CSX Rail/Freight by DP World. This deal whereby DP World buys CSX (formerly run by Sec of Treasury, John Snow, who incedentally is head of the government panel approving of DR World purchase of US ports), and they buy it from Carlyle Group (who employs George Herbert Bush and MANY other politically connected follks, like James BakerIII and Frank Carlucci, and now headed by Lou Guerstner, former IBM CEO), which when aded to the ports, gives a foreign government control of a HUGE American Transportation system. So why isn’t the MSM talking about this? Why is no one talking about the BUSH Family’s huge stake in the deal and how that may have influenced George W’s decision to push this forward. Is W selling out America? I would say yes, definately and this is not the first time.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:18 pmThe Rpresident is not to use America for a personal business tool. THAT is all that bUshCo has done in office.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:49 amI asked a republican friend to name one thing bush has done right. he couldn’t come up with a thing. We as Americans have no choice but to distrust any decission made by this conglomerate.
George Dubai Bush, what a clever name! Perhaps we should outsource our military to Dubai as well. As long as they wear our uniforms that is!!!!(props to Michael Savage)
February 24th, 2006 at 5:54 amThis constant attempt to play the race card to get people to accept this shady deal with Dubai is poppycock. The UAE is not an elected democracy. The UAE has a long record of involvement with known TERRORISTS like OSAMA BIN LADEN! The UAE is currently engaged in human rights violations and HUMAN SLAVERY!!!!!!! If this was during WW2 and we were at war with Germany, we WOULD NOT be relinquishing control of our sea ports to governments or companies that our sympathetic to, harbor, or support Nazi Germany in any way!!!! This is not a Race Issue, this is a WAR ON TERROR ISSUE!!!! Remember the WAR ON TERROR that Bush said we need to be fighting for the rest of our lives? HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN 911?!?!?!?!? We’re not talking about turning the ports over to a regulated American company anyway. Its not an American company, its a government not governed by the same regulations that govern our country or American companies. Dubai and the UAE are not regulated like America is regulated. Thats why Bush wants to OUTSOURCE the contract to an unregulated country/company!!!! Thats why all the jobs get OUTSOURCED because other countries lack the regulations and protections for their employees. STOP OUTSOURCING ANYTHING!!!!! STOP BUYING PRODUCTS MADE WITH SLAVE LABOR! STOP SELLING AMERICA TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES!!!!!! There are so many reasons not to support this deal with Dubai that FAR OUTWEIGH any reason anyone on this board has cited. I dont care if you lived in Dubai or vacationed in Dubai as a sailor taking liberties with the people the government of Dubai has enslaved. ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!?!? WAKE UP!!!!!!!
February 24th, 2006 at 5:55 amhi everybody ,
i am a girl from UAE and i went you to know some fact about my country .
* do you knoe that the UAE have more then 1000 Nationality live togather and all of them are safe here .
*do you know that there is no one has been Hurt after the painting about our prophet Mohamd and i am honest about that.
* also many of my teachers in the university are from US and UK and we have a very good relationship more then you can imagen .
so please do not judge about us as a people or as conutry if you do not know us ….!
and if you went i can give you my glabalization teacher e-mail ,she is from US and she can tell you more about UAE and the Emiraties .
February 24th, 2006 at 7:28 amWakeup, you’re right on the mark. I was just reading Bush’s comments that anyone disagreeing with his deal with Dubai as “UnAmerican” and labeling criticism and scruitiny of his dirty deals as “Islamophobia.” All this after Bush launched a full scale war against Iraq based on the idea that Saddam had WMD’s and was working with Bin Laden against the US. How dare you George Bush insult the American people by calling anyone “UnAmerican” just because they don’t trust you. If anyone in this country generated “Islamophobia” it was George Bush and his lying, treasonous, inept regime. George Bush failed to protect the United States from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. George Bush lied and sent American son’s and daughters to die in Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi men, women and children. George Bush sells weapons to and forms partnerships with every terrorist dictatorship, enslaving people on the planet. George Bush is the most incompetent, lying, moronic fool ever to soil the White House. How dare you call anyone in this country “UnAmerican” George Bush. Thats like the pot calling the kettle black.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:38 amHi Sara. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a word you say. Just because you have a nice life in the UAE doesn’t mean that everyone does. (If you are indeed who you say you are.) Just because you aren’t a slave doesn’t mean there aren’t slaves in the UAE Sara. Just because you may or may not be a good person does not mean that your government isn’t corrupt or have business deals with terrorists. You paint a nice rosie picture Sara. Its unfortunate that 9/11 happened and that Bush is in office, otherwise I might be inclined to believe you. I hope it all works out for you Sara and I hope other people in the UAE get to live the fortunate life you “appear” to be living. You sound very fortunate. Maybe when you talk to your teacher next you can ask your teacher to explain to you the story of the Trojan Horse. Let us know how that goes. Bye bye now Sara.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:45 am*bangs head against wall repeatedly*
This is so annoying – Dubai, and more imporatantly the UAE is pretty much the most pro-western place in the middle east.
The fact is, if the US were to cut this down, not only would there be a backlash in the middle east, but also around the world. Its an issue that deals not only with the politics but also with commercial and economic issues as well.
I’m just going to link articles that might shine a bit of light here:
http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/02/23/dubai-ports-arab-react-cx_daa_0223dubai.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114069020761240.xml&coll=1
February 24th, 2006 at 7:48 amOh and one final one that deals with all the fracking myths floating around:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
February 24th, 2006 at 7:50 amGail, you bring up a very interesting point: “The fact is, if the US were to cut this down, not only would there be a backlash in the middle east, but also around the world.” I’m glad you said this. This is just another fantastic reason why American should not accept this deal with Dubai. This is blackmail pure and simple. America should under no circumstance ever base their decision to sell off control of the country for fear of “backlash.” Americans should control American ports and never cave to pressure or political blackmail. We sent our troops into Iraq under the premise that Iraq was threatening the US. What makes you think Americans wont support a legitimate response to any “backlash” Dubai wants to bring for not doing business with them. Americans don’t appreciate being threatened with “backlash.” If you think you just made a case to deal with Dubai, you’re sadly mistaken. Now lets move on to the Backlash since I prefer that alternative to threats and extortion.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:19 amoh my gad ,
February 24th, 2006 at 8:28 amyou really do not know anything about us . what is Trojan Horse do you really believe that ?
i am from UAE and i am Proud of that . i am not lucky it is just how our live is .
we do not have slaves here . please be sure about what you write about before saying it .
if you just know what our cenutry do for us as a girls you will be shocked .
and about asking my teacher .we taked about that issue in the class about the “ports problem” . and do you know what she said . she said that the American have the wrong idea about us because the just believe what they see .
Well Sara I’m sorry that America doesn’t trust Dubai or the UAE. Ever since George Bush took office and allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch Americans have become very distrustful. If we can’t even trust our own elected President of the United States, can you really blame us for not trusting anyone else Sara? I hope you understand that our distrust of the UAE and Dubai is George Bush’s fault. Perhaps when we elect an honest President, we’ll begin to trust your government more. And it doesn’t help that we hear stories that your government allows terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to hide in your country and wont allow the US to check their bank records. Maybe if your country would allow the US to come in and inspect everything we might be more willing to trust your government. Maybe you and your teacher and your class can write your government a letter asking for permission to allow the US citizens and independent media to come in and inspect everything we might be more trusting. And while you’re at it, you should ask your government to hold democratic elections. We’re far more trusting of democratically elected governments. It sounds like you have alot of work ahead of you Sara. Good luck.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:36 amUmm, TrojanHorse – America has *always* had policies that focussed on isolationism or self protection.
Wasn’t it even called the Isolation Policy before world war 2 occured?
And america is not selling control of the country. America has issues with security that have developed over the years that needs dealing with, true. It should have kept dealing with the ports, within borders. UAE would not control anything – its management not control – commercial, not political. The aims are profit and the UAE is well aware that its continued success lies with allying itself to western countries.
Please, bother to actually research the country. There will be issues regarding 9/11 stuff, but that applies to every arab country and even America. The country itself strives towards becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. More than 70% of the population is foreign, primarily Indian, Asian, and Western. A lot of people go there to work because you don’t have to pay any taxes.
Its very modern, and pro-western. Which is why the back lash I was referring to was in sentiment that the USA can make demands to countries and then snubbed them without adequate reason.
The company in question is british – the third largest in the world for this industry I think and there are a lot more ports its getting control of, in countries OTHER THAN america. It isn’t all about the USA, as difficult as it might be for you to understand.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:54 amWHAT THE HECK, EVEN I WOULD BE TEMPTED TO SELL OUT A PIECE OF AMERICA IF I WAS OFFERED WHAT BUSH WILL GET WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE, FOR SELLING OUR PORTS TO THE ARABS ( OUR aggressor enemies) IT COMES FROM GOOD SOURCE HE OR THE FAMILY EMPIRE WILL COLLECT $1BILLION DOLLARS).
February 24th, 2006 at 9:05 amTHINK ABOUT THAT, THAT’S ONE THOUNDAND MILLION.
we do not need democratically elected governments because our life are better then yours .you do not imagen how much we love our President . if you know how we live you will thnik that we are kings .
in my family we are only 6 people and we have 3 cares, we live in a very big house every one of us have a room , my father salary is about 6700$ per month . we do not have tax so we do not pay any thing . we also do not pay for water or electricity or for the teleplone bills because where my father work pay for it . also the Emiraties people study for free in both the schools and the university , and there is more …..
and i do not blame you because i know everything about the American . i just do not like the way that you talk about us when you do not know anything .
go to this web site and read about UAE and i hope that you will get a better picture .
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 amhttp://www.uaeinteract.com/government/zayed.asp
Gail
“9/11″ stuff is a nice benign description to use to refer to terrorist attacks that kill Americans dead.
I wasn’t aware that Dubai workers didn’t pay taxes. I pay taxes. Why should I condone the outsourcing of America to a country that require taxes to be paid?
Gail, I’m not making any demands on Dubai, never have. I’m not sure what you mean by “demands” but Americans don’t appreciate “demands” made against them by foreign countries threatening a “backlash.”
You’re quite right tho, not everything is about the US. But in this case, we are talking about ports in the US. We don’t need Dubai to run our ports. Thanks for the offer though. Have a nice day.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 amTrojanHorse- you ask about the demands the US makes- well here it is in a nutshell, alright:
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/02/port-call.html
Have a good day.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:20 amWell Sara it sounds like you’re a nice rich girl from a nice rich family from a nice rich country. Americans aren’t so rich because Bush likes to outsource all of our jobs to foreign countries. We don’t care for Kings in America because a long time ago when the King of England tried to control America, Americans dumped alot of tea in the harbor. Our President think he’s a king but he’s not thats why alot of Americans want to see him impeached. It sounds like Dubai and the UAE are doing very well and don’t need the job of control are ports as much as Americans. So I guess your rich daddy will have to go get someone tax free money elsewhere. Good luck Sara.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:23 amhave you noticed that king licker “RUSH:” is frothing at th mouth since Bush gave him a raise. I am not suire what his title is but take your choice king licker or lapper fits Rush
February 24th, 2006 at 9:29 amDon’t blame poor Bush, the price is right.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:37 amI an with you that we do not need this deal . and i hope that it goes as you went . because as an Emirates people we do not went to take your jobs from you and i hope that you can win in that .
and about being rich , i am not really .
but you know what ….
i am happy that you get the chance to know more about my country .
good Luck *_*
February 24th, 2006 at 9:42 amDon’t be discouraged Sara. Not all Americans are so filled with hate that they can’t see through the bursting blood vessals in their eyes. The people who oppose this deal are hate based, they either hate Bush or hate Arabs. Hopefully reason will prevail.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:05 amthank you Dennis …
but I am not discouraged . i just do not care about the deal because it will not affect us negatively , the compeny have a lot of business in many other countries around the world so we will not lose anything , but it will be for you or that what they think .
February 24th, 2006 at 10:17 amBush is THE Manchurian Canidate.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:19 amMyth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:21 amPeople are so blinded and mired in political correctness. CNN is reporting that some think it’s racist to be concerned about arabs running our ports. It’s time to realize we don’t live in a nice cozy little world and everything is NOT going to be o.k. It’s called you are seeing the steps to our world’s demise. Stay tuned.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:23 amWe have in essence been at war with Cuba for a long time but we don’t out of hand bar all Latin countries from doing bussiness with us. The negative reaction to this deal is just what the terrorists of 911 hoped to achieve..they don’t want Americans and Arabs to coexist peacefully. It’s a shame from the uproar it appears the terorists have won the hearts and minds of a few Americans
February 24th, 2006 at 10:29 amGetReal and Dennis: I was afraid of this — the issue getting derailed by one rogue comment and everyone’s emotion getting hijacked and people ending up with clenched teeth and clenched fists punching at the air. Can we please get back to discussing the issue? In a mud fight we all lose our garments to mud.
To Sara:
February 24th, 2006 at 10:31 amThe issue is not with the UAE as a country, the issue is with the potential for increase in vulnerability to terrorist attack presented by the deal in question. There are good and bad people everywhere, America and the UAE included.
Hello Sara,
I am a Canadian who has lived in Dubai and the UAE for twenty years – I have truly come to appreciate the UAE and the city of Dubai, from it’s noble beginings to it’s success as a world player today. Unfortunately most of our American friends, have not step foot outside the United States. All they know about the Middle East is what they hear on the news and from their government. A perfect example is the current Iraq war. Canada, a country north of the US is much more aware of Middle East and Arabs (though we can still learn more). I have several friends who lived in the UAE, and now reside major Canadian cities across Canada. On reading thru the comments on this website, we are all in utter disbelief at the level of public ignorance and paranoia in the United States.
Sara, I agree with you, Dubai and the UAE do not need the six ports to continue it’s success – however what troubles me is that Americans (who are truly very giving and good at heart) are quite possibly harming the best relations they can hope for in the Middle East region. It is no secret most Canadians do not support Bush, however, we find him “correct” on this issue – only because we are aware of Dubai and the UAE.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:33 amSlowtrain…my teeth and fist are not clenched as you say. Anger is not an issue with me nor do I try to make anyone angry. Bottom line is if it weren’t for the fact that this was an Arab company owned by an Arab country we wouldn’t be having this coversation. We didn’t have this coversation when China bought some our port terminals. Terrorist win when they spread terror. The negative reaction to this is one based in terror and not in reason. Chalk one up for the terrorists.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:56 amI am scared that my children will grow up in a country like the USA with people, who do not know all the information on Muslims regliion and the people. Not all Muslims are terrorists. It is like saying all Christian are terrorists, are they not the one bombing clinics and Gov. buildings. Did we already forget Oklahoma. There are bad people ever where and that does not mean we lock our country up and let know one in. We are called the melting Pot for a reason.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:07 amWell said Stella!
February 24th, 2006 at 11:12 am[...] think progress: [...]
February 24th, 2006 at 11:16 amDennis – I completely agree, this is purely paranoia of “possible terror” attacks, just because Dubai is based in the Middle East and is an Arab city, and partly because most of the Americans are oblivious to countries, economies and people in the Middle EAST.
Just hearing all the chants on this site has convinced me and several Canadians – the terrorits are truly winning this round. Most of us have always looked at the US as a melting pot, where people from all over the world, with various backgrounds and cultures come to co-exist and succeed in life.
This sadly is also a case of Bush crying wolf (on Arabs & Iraq with the American people), only this time there is a wolf, just a legit Arab country with a legit business deal.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:18 amSorry I meant to say “only this time there is no a wolf, just a legit Arab country with a legit business deal
February 24th, 2006 at 11:20 amTerrorism has been around in this world for centuries and most every other contry has been dealing with it as a part of life. So the one time it effects us we have to stop what we’re doing and declare “war” to end it once and for all, all around the world? As for the UAE’s purchase, remember that Bush has admitted that the first time he heard about this deal was when he read it in the news, just like the rest of us. So who’s really running the show?
February 24th, 2006 at 11:38 amto Democratic checkfact
thank you for your Comment …
i am happy that thier is someone who lived in UAE and know that we are not evil people who went to kill everybody ..
and for that reason i went to ask you to say everything that you know about us so the Americans could understand that we are a good people who try to live in this world just like them .
because even if i said it they will not believe me …
and again thank you ….
February 24th, 2006 at 11:38 amDennis & Democratic checkfact: I have never heard Chinese people call America the great Satan and call for its destruction on religious grounds, and for which many will gladly blow themselves to achieve. Again, I am not saying that is the case with all Arabs, but we cannot deny the facts, much as we cannot generalize its implications.
America is not in a state or paranoia; Americans are doing business with people from all over the globe, including the UAE, and vice versa. Why must it be all or nothing for the UAE?
America is the most open society in the world, regardless of her faults. Paranoia, absolutely not, caution and prudence, absolutely yes; ignoring or denying the facts and their implications is nothing but a perilous self assurance — like a smoker rationalizing his habit or a gun lobby claiming that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:58 amI just realized that my concluding analogy may be taken out of context. To be clear, it applies to comments made by Dennis & Democratic checkfact, not to UAE.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pmSlowtrain – when did you hear the UAE govt or the UAE citizens call America o potray “America the great Satan “???
I have heard/seen the Iranians do that, not UAE citizens. There isn’t a singlr banner in the UAE (in the twenty years I have lived there) which potray America as “Satan”. Plus please bear in mind UAE citizens are Arabs and Iranians are Persians. Comparing UAE citizens to Iranians is comparing the English & French.
Like every country, there are discussions on the plus and minus points of America, that does not make any country Anti-American.
I cannot understand, when you state America does business with the UAE, why must it be all or nothing. Let me ask you what in this particular case concerns you especially given the below facts?
DP World is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:12 pmDemocratic checkfact, as I said earlier, “every country has vulnerabilities, in light of their experience, history, and situation, hence it is in the national interest of each country to exercise caution and to make every reasonably effort to protect itself and not expose itself to sources prone to potential danger. The danger America faces may not be the danger any other country may face, and vice versa.” The pertinent situations and the variance thereof are patently incongruent.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pmSlowtrain I am on board with you on your comment# 511. If this was a Saudi government company, perhaps I may have had reservations and if it was an Iranian government company – I would have said NO way! But this is the UAE, and I am just unable to understand your comments above in context to the UAE or Dubai – I feel you should visit the place and experience it, to really know what some of us are saying here. None of us want any harm to come to any country, including the US, over a few dollars or a business deal.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pmSara, you are welcome- I agree with you, if nothing, Americans are at the least being exposed to the UAE and Dubai. I am sure, knowing the Amercican mind, most people will do their due diligence on the UAE going forward – and will truly help both sides.
No country is perfect the UAE nor the US, however I truly feel the objective and intent for a better tomorrow is a common trait of both nations.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:51 pmDemocratic checkfact, I have said repeatedly, the issue is not with Dubai or the UAE as a place or country. No one is suggesting that the people, at large, are bad people. It is not the majority that we are concerned about, it is the lethal minority that has and will exploit America’s openness and every available avenue to harm America. Please refer to comment #417.
I quite understand where you are coming from, so to speak. A certain African adage says “if a snake enters your house, you don’t set your house of fire to drive out or kill the snake, but you don’t pretend the snake has gone way, just because you don’t see it.” What I am implying is that a thorough verification is needed and verification in itself is an exercise of caution. Surely, you cannot fault Americans for that due diligence in ensuring their own safety. True, in a situation such as this, there is a perceived tendency for heightened sensitivity and insensitivity on either side, but in the final analysis, it is “who feels it knows it”.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmSlowtrain – thank you for clarifying. I agree, a due process and clarification is required. My understanding is that the Dubai company had approached Homeland security and the US government in November to get this process a head start, and infact a 3 month review was performed. I am curious, what the US senators (who are up in arms now) were doing the past 3 months?
However, I think your comment is truly valid, if you are not happy there is no harm performing further extensive review. Perhaps it may calm your lack of confidence in Dubai and UAE in general – as DP world has put forth to delay the closing of the deal specific to the US, until the American public and congress have performed a full and extensive review. I think that should tell you a lot about this company and it’s objectives.
Also I enjoyed reading the debate between John, Nick, Rashan and you – this is what truly what makes America a better place. The right to dissent and debate.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pmWhile there are security concerns with any foreign company operating a system like our container ports(which everyone knows is a very porous system, in the US), i find it interesting that this deal has secretive and unusual clauses(see C-span)in it. It is understandable that we are not “supposed” to be giving up any of our security practices, i feel it is improper to be dealing with a company that is owned by a foreign “country”, not just a “FOREIGN COMPANY”. I can understand why people have more reservations that a foreign country will be managing a system that our government has hardly improved on the pre-911 security, i myself, wouldnt have reservations if the deal looked like it was on the “up and up”. But , by no means does this deal look appealing even without secretive clauses. It is interesting how the administration says dubai will not have anything to do with security , but in the next sentence they mention how the agreement has “added” security clauses in it.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmMore than the security issue, what bothers me most is that the country we are dealing with is a “fascist regime”, not the UK,Denmark,etc. My gut feeling, based on what this administration, and some previous ones have done to labor, but this one moreso, to align with a fascist gov’t, seems very shady. Understandably, the teamsters and longshoremen have been scheduling protest rallies, and i for one plan to give them my full support and wish others to do the same. I wonder if these ports are the main ones that Wal-mart uses? j/k, i hope.
“What could possibly go wrong? Cleopatra and Egypt are our allies who continue to send us large shipments of grain. The fact that they have helped and financed terrorists such as Marcus Antonius should not be a factor in our decision making,” future Emperor Octavius was quoted as saying.
Good job Tee Zjack! I’m glad to see someone on this site is actually thinking about the men this deal with Dubai will harm if it goes through. Bush really wants to bust our unions and take fair wages away from Americans.
Obviously Bush and the UAE are getting a bi-partisan beating on this one because they are back peddling like puppies sliding on kitchen linoleum. You think the slave trading Dubai government is having second thoughts now that Americans want to check out their terrorist lined bank accounts? The Dubai may end up backing out of the deal if too much scruitiny comes their way. And Bush may need to look for someone else to outsource our ports too to break our unions. Maybe he’ll ask China to do it. God knows what goes one in the prison labor camps there. The next time you eat with a set of chopsticks, you might want to ask yourself where they’ve been!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmProLongshoreman….China already leases Port Terminals in the US. It hasn’t been an issue.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pmIts not an issue for you Dennis, you aren’t out of a job. Dennis you strike me as being someone that is only out for number one. I wonder what you do for a living and what will happen when your and if your job is at risk of being outsourced. Lucky for you no one is competing for the job of trained monkey.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pmProLongshoremen – where did you read job outsourcing in the US if DP world takes over P&O? What part from the below paragraph implies to you, jobs are going to be outsourced?
DP world is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pmSeveral companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
Democratic checkfact, I concur with your comments in #515 and might I add that dialogue based on objective reasoning and sincere effort to understand and recognize one another’s positions, in as much as they may seem peculiar, and the legitimacy of those positions, where it is valid, is my idea of respect and fairness, and this I believe is critical to global stability. It helps to understand a difficult issue, when each one involved puts himself in another’s shoes, so to speak.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmDubai has the financial resources to bust the unions, while others dont. One more thing, any job you may have, all the benefits that you do receive,vaction, health care, pensions, besides fair wages , a hefty thank you is due to the ancestors who fought for those benefits for everyone, not only union workers! I think a little support for their descendants is not asking too much. There is no way this deal will be good for american workers,let alone for the country as a whole. And no amount of propaganda will change that !!!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWhat’s so great about the agreement of dissatisfaction to this deal is that it has nothing to do with their religion or nationality. It has everything to do with how UAE governs their country and conducts business.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pmI should say their race, not nationality.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pmDemocratic fabricatefacts:
The port operator will decide which longshoreman work at the port. If they don’t want the unionized longshoreman working there, what will stop them from firing the entire lot?
February 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pmIn regards to the comment by longshoreman, whether or not Dubai is leasing or buying hiring local or foreign it does not change how they conduct business. UAE is known for their cash flow and lack of record keeping. In fact, they don’t keep bank records in UAE. Another primary import to Dubai besides the nuclear weaponry to Iran and Saudi Arabia is Heroin. Dubai is the largest Heroin port for the Afghani Heroin trade in the world. It would be like saying to the Mafia, “Sure, you can run our banking system, as long as you hire local people.” Oh, and by the way, George W. Bush and his croonies, those boys over at the Carlyle group and the Treasury, good ol John Snow, have added several agreements to the sale, including that Dubai does not have to keep records in America that could potentially be seized by our government, nor do we, The American People and our Government, have to approve who Dubai hires to work in the ports.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pmAaron – as a Canadian qualified Professional Accountant & Auditor, I have worked with several leading multi national companies in the UAE during my twenty year tenure which ended in 2004. Your level of thought displays the ignorance and unintelligence associated with your comments. The UAE is a young country, they have some of the worlds best practices, checks and balances in place. Besides the BCCI, they have not had the Enrons, Worldcoms, Adelhias amongst other corporate scandals in the US.
Give me one country where Herion is not available or smuggled thru. It is easy to trash someone, when most involved is oblivious of the country and it’s practices.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat everyone seems to miss is the fact that we are now ruled by virtual empires, they are called global corporations. They could be anywhere–U.S.A., Japan, China, U.K., UAE, France, etc. They take over countries the same way that empires of old did, only not by the sword. Modern empires are more subtle in their approach, but nonetheless achieving the same end, perhaps even more. Their first regard is not to the country they take over, but to the tributes they can extract from hardworking people of the land and in the treasures of the land.
What is ever so greatly troubling is that people around the world, even Americans have failed to see this reality. We in America seem to think, and to our peril, that the freedom the founding fathers bled to procure is only for a certain “pursuit of happiness”, hence as long as our indulgence in fleeting pleasures, supplied in abundance by the empires that rule over our lands, to amuse us silly and into constant stupor, are unimpeded, we think we have freedom. In truth, freedom in America is increasing becoming symbolic and less substantive; it is increasingly loosing the essence the founders fought for –freedom from empires.
Now, before you call me “bloody isolationist†or conspiracy theorist, think about why we are having this debate in the first place.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pmHey UnDemocraticfacts
Since you’re so smart and ready to challenge anyone’s intelligence on this issue, how do you explain the UAE’s affiliation with Osama Bin Laden? How do you explain the stories that the UAE is refusing to allow inspection of their bank accounts and the allegations of money laundering? How do you explain the allegations of human slavery that exist in the UAE right under the nose of the UAE government? These aren’t stories that people are suddenly pulling out of thin air. These reports have been around for a long time yet you attempt to portray yourself as being the only credible source of information on the UAE/Dubai. What makes you so god damned smart and knowledgeable about the integrity of this non-democratically elected government? I realize you’ve been sniffing other people’s money for 20 years but surely you have some common sense left.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pmA clear doctrine?…
President Bush today:Secondly, I’ve set a clear doctrine: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorists, and you’re an enemy of the United…
February 24th, 2006 at 7:23 pmWhat really scares me about this -let-the-United-Arab -Emirates-control-your-6 U.S.-ports, is the fact that it seems that Presidents and Prime Ministers (as in my case) seem sincere, honest, before they are elected and than while in office, or Parliament, they change. It’s as if someone or something takes over, transforms their thinking, their direction and they themselves don’t know it’s happening. Canada has just elected a new government. I hope and pray that our P.M stands firm to protect our country and take a stand for truth, and justice, as I pray that President Bush see the light on this UAE issue and others….signing off as a Canadian who wants peace and freedom in the U.S. and Canada.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:30 pmWhat about the US’s affiliation with Osama? The Swiss Banking Community taking stolen money and art from the Jews which absolutely funded the Nazi final solution? Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs and felony crimes? The integrity of a government is its abilities to respond to and satisfy the needs of its people and to play nice and get along with people in the world community. Wake up.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmIn March 1996, U.S. customs agents seized 2,000 AK47 assault rifles, bound for U.S. street gangs, that were on board a COSCO ship. In 1996, COSCO signed a letter of intent with the port of Long Beach to lease a state-of-the-art, 53-hectare terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station. With this in mind, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-85), effectively banning COSCO from renting any portion of the former Long Beach Naval Station. COSCO, which is owned in part by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, is a less than ideal candidate for the port’s lease.
So in 1997 China sets up a new corporation, the China Shipping Group, which is now one of the many foreign companies operating ports worldwide and in the US.
This should have gotten people and our supposed outraged politicos off their asses, but it didn’t.
At least Dubai has said that we are allies and are moving ahead in regards to their human rights issues. China has nukes and was highly involved in the killing of US soldiers in Korea and Vietnam, along with the general spreading of unease with it’s Taiwan issues.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pmI voted for Bush and now will stop supporting him at all.This guy is a joke who doesnt want to even listen to the possible reasons this is a bad deal.He is more concerned with his Arab buddies over us.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:42 pmWhat about the US’s affiliation with Osama? The Swiss Banking Community taking stolen money and art from the Jews which absolutely funded the Nazi final solution? Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs and felony crimes? The integrity of a government is its abilities to respond to and satisfy the needs of its people and to play nice and get along with people in the world community. Wake up.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
What about the US’s affiliation with Osama? You want it to continue by doing business with UAE/Dubai? Ok, we know the Swiss Banking community collaborated with the Nazi and so did Prescott Bush…thats right, the money lining your pal George Bush’s pocket is Nazi blood money. Whats your point here Steve?
Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs, and felony crimes are exacerbated by the US continuing to maintain relationships with corrupt, dictatorial non democratic governments. The integrity of this government is based on its ability to not compromise ethics and morality in order to make a dollar. You advocate that Americans support George Bush’s dirty deals with dirty governments. How does that somehow improve the integrity of the US? Other than admitting that the Bush administration is corrupt, you make no sense Steve.
So in 1997 China sets up a new corporation, the China Shipping Group, which is now one of the many foreign companies operating ports worldwide and in the US.
This should have gotten people and our supposed outraged politicos off their asses, but it didn’t.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
You may be right Steve and it may have been a big mistake on our part for not looking into it further. But keep in mind that the Bush administration has spent 4 years whipping up fear in the American people toward the middle east. We’ve been so focused on sending our troops and resources to the middle east, I’m not surprised anything else has slipped in under the radar. We should be more alert about outsourcing anything to anyone, not just the middle east governments that support terrorism. But just because we may have dropped the ball with China doesn’t mean we should drop the ball with Dubai. Again, your logic makes no sense Steve. You keep saying since we screwed up over here, might as well keep screwing up. The buck stops here Steve.
At least Dubai has said that we are allies and are moving ahead in regards to their human rights issues. China has nukes and was highly involved in the killing of US soldiers in Korea and Vietnam, along with the general spreading of unease with it’s Taiwan issues.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Talk is cheap Steve. Dubai says its our ally yet Dubai is a dictatorship, has ties with Osama Bin Laden, the primary suspect in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 killing 3000 people on American soil, nearly 3000 troops in Iraq, and countless Iraqi people. Not to mention that Dubai has refused to allow us access to their bank accounts which appears to be lined with terrorist money. And the so called advancement of Dubai on human rights has yet to be seen.
Just because the United States deals with one criminal government doesn’t mean they should deal with another. What kind of justification is this Steve? Are you such a blind supporter of Bush that you would support any decision his administration makes no matter how unethical or no matter how bad it harms the American people? Whats wrong with you Steve? Don’t you love your country? I love the United States of America and it’s people. I want to protect the US and I don’t see how doing business with foreign criminals will protect us. This isn’t what our founding fathers intended for us. What you suggest we do is totally UnAmerican Steve. Take a stand Steve and join the American people in protecting our country. Don’t be willing to sell your soul and the legacy of the American people for a few dollars. The human race is waiting for you Steve. come on in.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:42 amI have just one question. If the deal with Dubai falls through, does that mean George Bush has to give back the 100 million dollars Dubai gave Bush for Hurricane Katrina?
February 25th, 2006 at 4:15 amUnited Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing (Paperback)
by Iqbal Ismail Hakim
Publisher: GAAP Publishing (July 2005)
ISBN: 0615127096
•Pre-9/11 warning from Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency (SAMA), the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, to the UAE Central Bank regarding questionable funding.
• Core 9/11 funding from Dubai to 9/11 terrorists in Florida
• Terrorist related bank accounts in United Arab Emirates (UAE)
• Questionable defense contract worth $3 billion involving an Ex-US General
• Questionable bank account for a US State Senator from Florida
• Bank accounts for Victor Bout the largest arms dealer in the world, wanted by INTERPOL
• Arms bazaar of Abu Dhabi
• Money laundering involving the Prince
• Questionable funding from Algeria
• Russian Money laundering Spider Web going to the Middle East
• Money laundering Operations of a top bank in the World
• Black Camel, an inside story into the UAE Financial System
and much more! All true stories from the diary of an auditor who examined the banking records of the HSBC Central Bank in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Events like 9/11 will continue to rock the world and the next target could be the Big Ben of London, the Eiffel Tower of Paris, the Pyramids of Egypt or the Taj Mahal of India. I appeal to World Leaders to control their banking industries! If you want to control terrorism, you must hit them where it counts – in the funding. Do not close your eyes to this trend or ignore auditors like me, when questionable account activities are uncovered!
February 25th, 2006 at 5:36 amHere’s the link to the facts on the United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Here’s an an incriminating document on the UAE’s money laundering terrorist financing practices:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
February 25th, 2006 at 5:57 amBush Cites Reasons Against Outsourcing US Ports to UAE/Dubai http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world.” UAE has refused to allow outside inspection of the UAE banking system after reports of UAE terrorist money laundering.
“Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.” UAE will not allow visitors into the country with passports stamped with Iraeli passport stamp.
“And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America’s economy, and put our people back to work.” Outsourcing jobs puts Americans out of work.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:41 amWhat I really have a problem with is operations in our major ports are being sold to a state-owned company. I have to question whether that is the smartest thing to do while we our in the war on terror. That invariably mixes politics (well, foreign relations, to be specific). and business.
February 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pmBut then again, our friends in the White House don’t have a problem with that, now do they?
The previous administration spearhead by Clinton himself wanted to turn over operations of a defunk Naval Base to A Chinese goverment owned company. The deal was ultimately nixed by the Congress. The Chinese had existing port terminals operations before the proposed deal and expanded after the deal…they just didn’t get the defunk Naval Base. There are roughly 3000 port terminals in the United States, no supposed authority seems to know how many of them are foriegn owned.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pmTypical Bush diversionary tactic. Whenever someone nails Bush for the crap he’s doing today some apologetic Bush lacky throws Clinton’s name out. Nevermind holding Bush accountable, keep beating your Clinton drum. Thats all you can do since its obvious Bush is utterly corrupt. You certainly can’t defend Bush. You’d look like a fool..well a bigger fool anyway.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHmm…I don’t see where I was defending Bush. Didn’t make mention of him. I didn’t express one way or the other weather I was for or against the port deal. Merely pointed out the Chinese are already here and that we have many other terminals that we should figure out who owns them. I could care less about the politics and want instead some straight up answers. When you take a political side on the right or left you leave yourself open to only knowing half truths. Instead of taking someones word for it you should seek out the truth for yourself or you are a fool. Americas safety is better served without politics.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pmAnytime someone attempts to hold Bush accountable, some jackass Bush supporter makes excuses for Bush by mentioning Clinton. Clinton hasn’t been in the white house for over 5 years. Get some new material. Bush is a filthy scum bag traitor who makes deals with terrorists and gets Americans killed. Bush should be impeached immediately and jailed with Saddam for crimes against humanity.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmOk lets hold Bush accountable. First, he is a traitor how? Serious charge but it needs some substance. In America we are innocent until proven guilty, correct? If you could prove it we could skip the impeachment because treason is punishable by death. Jailing him with Saddam would be real ironic considering Saddam wouldn’t be in jail for crimes against hummanity if it weren’t for the fact that Bush decided he as you put it “Gets Ammericans Killed” Personally I was hoping Gephart would have got the nomination from the Democratic party last time around as I would have voted for him. His focus seemed to be on the country and not his politcal affiliation. We need substance in our goverment and not the rants of the latest politcal mood. HAteing Bush is old material too. What are your solutions for the country? Is it just to hate Bush? Do you have any proposals, direction? What do we have to do to make this country better? I imagine you will say get rid of Bush to the last one…but then what?
February 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHating Bush is old material because he’s done alot to be hated for. But until now, most people were afraid to say anything because chickenshit Bush supporters like you always attempted to turn the tables on the people that saw through his criminalbehavior. You don’t sound convinced Bush has done anything wrong. Ignoring 50 reports on how terrorist specifically planned to attack the US. Taking the US into a war based on lies. Getting Americans and innocent Iraqis killed. Spying on Americans and then turning around and making deals with the corrupt governments that support the terrorists that attacked the US. If we can Impeach a president for getting a blow job, the least we can do is Impeach Bush. And it would be fitting to see Bush sharing a jail cell with his old buddy Saddam. They’re no different in my book, and Bush apologetics like you are edging awful close as well Dennis.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI can do you one better FS. Round up all Bush supporters like Dennis and give em two choices. Either serve as human slaves in the UAE or be air dropped out of a C141 into Fallujah with bayonets only. That way they have to look the Iraqis in the eye when they fight ‘em hand to hand. Dennis would be shitting a trail of green all the way down from the plane.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmOK, all weel and good. The question remains. How does your hate for Bush increase the security at our ports? Will your hate for Bush help us figure out how many of the US port terminals are currently owned by foriegn entities and of those how many are hostile to the US? I have been researching terminal ownership and it is no easy trick. It would be nice to have like minded indiduals wheather Democrat or Republican doing the same. We have a serious problem right now with our port system weather or not this UAE deal goes through or not. I’d like to find some help and solutions. If you could free up some of your Bush hating time for some “I Love America Time” maybe we could make the USA a safer place. As I have said United States Security is better served without politics.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pmGreat solution “Closecombat” but how does that solution make you different from those you say are so corrupt. The old “freedom of speech” as long as you say what I want you to or I will kill you? What a great American you are.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:12 pmDennis, get off your high horse. You know god damned well that there isn’t a god damned thing we can do about the corruption in this country as long as we have a corrupt regime headed by criminal occupying the executive chair. He’s got cronies a mile deep looking the other way for him while he tears this country apart. Hitler had the Brown Shirts, Gestapo,and the Third Reich running interference for him. Bush has Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreilly, the Senate, the House, not to mention you running interference for him. As for Freedom of Speech, Cindy Sheehan can’t even wear a T-shirt without getting arrested yet her son can DIE for Bush and his war based on lies. Bush can pass the patriot act, spy on Americans, arrest people without provocation and hold them indefinately and you have the gaul to question anyone elses patriotism? Bottom line is this. IF you support George Bush in any way, whether you elected him or you simply enjoy his right wing fundamentalist agenda, you should be over in Iraq fighting his war at the bare mimimum. The rest of us that realize a criminal is holding the USA hostage should be doing everything in their power to impeach George Bush and his criminal cronies before he makes another dirty deal with another corrupt terrorist regime that costs more Americans their lives. Dennis, stop attacking the people that want to hold Bush accountable. You have no intention of solving anything other than pointing fingers at everyone else but the person directly responsible. And anyone that served in the military knows a leader is responsible for the lives of his subordinates. The same holds true for the commander in chief. 3000 Americans died under his watch on 9/11/2001. Nearly 3000 Americans have died under his watch in Iraq and countless others have been seriously wounded and scarred or life because they followed the orders of a lying criminal who stole the election in 2000. There is nothing that can be done as long as we have the Republican Mafia running this country into the ground Dennis. And as long as you can’t see that, you’re part of the problem. Do us all a favor and find a way to get yourself over to Iraq. Sacrificing yourself for Bush is the least you could do to help keep someone’s son or daughter from dying in your place.
February 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI am not attacking anyone “ProAmerican” and I am not supporting anyone. I am concerned about port security (Wich is the issue). You keep railing about Bush and you keep implying that I am a Bush supporter. Personaly I am more synical than political. I have a tendancy to think the majorty of politicians are corrupt and the whole lot of them (Republican & Demacrat) desperately need to be voted out. They spend so much time arguing among themselves, Bin Laden could walk right by them and no one would notice. But I digress. What is the solution to the Port problem “ProAmerican”. Its not black and white. It is not an easy answer. There are many factors to consider. Do you even know what those factors are? We have established that you hate Bush but we haven’t established what you know about world poltics and the port situation. (exsept that you would like to send everyone who disagrees with you to Iraq silencing any oppositin to you. Sounds like what you say about the people you oppose. Life is full of those kind of ironies) Dazzel us with your intelligence. Enlighten us. I have asked you this before and you always go back to Bush. Does your life consist of anything else? Is there more depth to you than your hate?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pmProAmerican, you forgot he owns the Supreme Court. Thats how he stole the election in 2000. Yep, I agree. Anyone that voted for Bush should be in Iraq. Bush fans like to say that the soldiers dying in Iraq had a choice but when Bush outsources all the jobs and cuts all the federal tuition assistance, it doesn’t leave young people many options. Thats a sneaky way of forcing people to join the military without actually reinstituting the draft. Pretty soon Bush will have an entire group of longshoremen signing up to take the ASVAB.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pmInteresting that someone would use my name on the above comment. Better to confuse the issue. Thats why politics should stay out of security. Everybody is to busy trying to win and America winds up undefended.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pmDennis it was BUSH THAT THREATENED TO VETO IF CONGRESS OPPOSED THE DEAL WITH DUBAI!!!! THATS WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUSH! Get that through your head. If someone else was in charge and forcing the USA to deal with known terrorists we’d be screaming that persons name. You want me to give you some ideas about outsourcing? STOP DOING IT! Its not a difficult concept but you make it complicated. Just SAY NO Dennis, just like Rush Limbaugh should’ve said no to OxyContin aka Hillbilly Heroin.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWell that is better. You only said his name once and I believe that is the first time you said what your position is on the port aquistion. Now inquiring minds would like to know why are you opposed to the deal? Is it just because Bush supports it or is there more to your opposition? I’d really like to know. If you use facts in your answer they make you appear intelligent. Unsubstantiated clams will make you appear less intelligent.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmOh geesh…maybe I shoul tell you what my position is? But then again you never seemed to take the time to ask. Do you even want to know? Or do you think you have me figured out?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:58 pmDennis, you sure try to make this look like rocket science. We’re up to 557 messages in this thread and alot of people have been posting “facts.” I have a pretty good idea where you stand just by reading your previous posts and attempts to divert attention away from the “facts.” But since scrolling back seems to be beyond your capability, lets just start with the “facts” located at the top of the thread. Oh btw Dennis, thanks for telling me how to “sound intelligent.” Maybe you should take your own advice. Go ahead and feel free to lay out your big spiel. I’ll be back later with my hip waders on to check it out.
“Some facts about the UAE:
– 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.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:55 pm– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
“The other 2 were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Its important to check the facts for yourself to make sure someone isn’t feeding you a bunch of crap.”
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
There have been ilegal shipments of potential nuclear componants from Britain, France, China and the United States as well. In the case of Britain, France and the US the shipments were stopped and confiscated. In regaurds to China it is suspected that many key componates are still being smuggled. China owns and operates Port Terminals in the US.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
Transferred from the UAE banking system to the US banking system. Where it remained undetected until after 911. Prior to 911 there didn’t seem to be any interest by the US to track or close Bin Ladens bank accounts. This is true with President Bush’s and President Clinton’s administrations. Both parties dropped the ball.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Strictly greed on that one. Probably wanted to keep the money for themselves since they weren’t going to see Bin Laden anymore. They act like they were Americans.
All very valid points! By themselves they are only part of the story. We need the full story in order to make an informed decision.
Whats the down side if we nix the deal? We could insult not just the UAE but many of our allies in the Middle East. Worst case scenario what would we loose? Our stategic position in the Middle East.
Al Dhafra Air Base, Abu Dhabi, US Air Force
1 installation, no further details
Bahrain
Bahrain, Bahrain, US Navy
Muharraq Airfield
Kuwait
Camp Doha, Kuwait City, US Army
Camp Udairi, Kuwait City, US Army
Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, US Air Force
Ali Al Salem Air Base, US Air Force
Oman
Masirah Island MPT, Dhuwwah, US Air Force
Seeb MPT, Sib, US Air Force
Thumrait MPT, Salalah, US Air Force
Qatar
Al Udeid Air Base, Al Udeid, US Air Force
1 Einrichtung ohne weitere Angaben
Saudi Arabia
Eskan Village Air Base, US Air Force
Riyadh Air Base, Riyadh, US Air Force
King Abdul Aziz Air Base, Dhahran, US Air Force
King Fahd Air Base, Taif, US Air Force
King Khalid Air Base, Khamis Mushayt, US Air Force
We have to be carefull and think long and hard. Iran is gunning for a nuke. Who do you think they want to nuke. If I was a betting man I’d say it wasn’t gonna be their buddy France…more likely, say uh…”The Great Satan”
In the coming times we are going to need some friends in the Middle East. They don’t have to be our best freinds either. To say yes or no to the UAE is not something I am trying to make complex. It just is complex.
You could argue it either way and not be wrong. I lean towards letting the deal go through. We can keep an eye on them here and I would like to see the US keep alot of firepower within arms reach of Iran. There aint nothing like a nuclear weapon to ruin your day.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pmWorld politics isn’t much differnt from our politics here in the US. You want to make the best choice but because of poor canidates you are instead forced to pick the lesser of two evils. We need more people who will vote for what’s good for the country as opposed to what will get them re-elected. The majority of our politicians few the port contreversy as a campain tool and not a security issue. Both Democrat and Republican.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pmHi Dennis, I took couple of days off from reading any comments, after the last bit of exhausting debate with Slowtrain and others.
However I just wanted to say, you have correctly and very aptly captured and pointed out in comments 558 & 559 why it is better this deal go thru. People have to open up and truly look at things from a long term perspective. I have been listening to what Peter King, Charles Schumer and others (including bloggers on this site have been saying about the UAE i..e 9/11, money laundering, OBL connection – however no one seems to cover the story in it’s fully. Dennis you have pointed out some valid facts/points.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:01 pmThanks Roshan…the truth is going to always be the truth. A half truth will always be a lie. I don’t believe in black and white issues. Nothing is ever that simple.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pmDennis I read your responses to the bullet points at the beginning of this thread. Obviously you disagree with many of the author’s points, in particlar, the allegations made regarding the UAE and its ties to terrorist financing and money laundering.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
“Strictly greed on that one. Probably wanted to keep the money for themselves since they weren’t going to see Bin Laden anymore. They act like they were Americans.”
Comment by Dennis — February 25, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
Your “probibility” assessment of the UAE’s motives for concealing their assets and bank activities from the US after ties were identified between the UAE and Bin Laden is suspect. I question the validity of your assessment which does not appear to be based on a qualified opinion or empircal data (btw its a good idea to support your conclusions with emprical data if you wish to appear intelligent Dennis). Earlier in this thread there was a post regarding a book produced by an accountant who worked for the UAE named Iqbal Ismail Hakim.
I listened to an interview a few days ago with Mr. Hakim. He appears to have first hand knowledge of the UAE’s terrorist ties and money laundering practices. He also said he’s receiving numerous death threats from the UAE for publishing their “mafia” like activities in his book. Mr. Hakim’s statements regarding the UAE are far more convincing than any arguments you’ve made to the contrary. I suggest you check out his book and website which contains excerpts from his book and (empirical data) copies of the detailed financial transactions of the UAE. Here are the bullet points from his book along with his brief commentary. The links to his website are also posted below.
United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing (Paperback)
by Iqbal Ismail Hakim
Publisher: GAAP Publishing (July 2005)
ISBN: 0615127096
•Pre-9/11 warning from Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency (SAMA), the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, to the UAE Central Bank regarding questionable funding.
• Core 9/11 funding from Dubai to 9/11 terrorists in Florida
• Terrorist related bank accounts in United Arab Emirates (UAE)
• Questionable defense contract worth $3 billion involving an Ex-US General
• Questionable bank account for a US State Senator from Florida
• Bank accounts for Victor Bout the largest arms dealer in the world, wanted by INTERPOL
• Arms bazaar of Abu Dhabi
• Money laundering involving the Prince
• Questionable funding from Algeria
• Russian Money laundering Spider Web going to the Middle East
• Money laundering Operations of a top bank in the World
• Black Camel, an inside story into the UAE Financial System
and much more! All true stories from the diary of an auditor who examined the banking records of the HSBC Central Bank in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Events like 9/11 will continue to rock the world and the next target could be the Big Ben of London, the Eiffel Tower of Paris, the Pyramids of Egypt or the Taj Mahal of India. I appeal to World Leaders to control their banking industries! If you want to control terrorism, you must hit them where it counts – in the funding. Do not close your eyes to this trend or ignore auditors like me, when questionable account activities are uncovered!
Comment by readthis — February 25, 2006 @ 5:36 am
Here’s the link to the facts on the United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Here’s an incriminating document on the UAE’s money laundering terrorist financing practices:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Comment by CorruptUAEFactFinder — February 25, 2006 @ 5:57 am
February 26th, 2006 at 3:48 amYour headline text is false and misleading. The work was already outsourced to P&O and nothing is the Dubai Ports deal gives control of the ports to the company.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:03 amSecurity is the responsibility of the the Port Authority, the US Customs Service, the US Coast Guard and a number of other federal agencies. The company is obliged to comply with the security requirements mandated by these authorities.
The company is responsible for freight management and forwarding, and the work of stevedors, longshoremen and administrative staff.
Could we please just deal with the facts rather than the fog drummed up by ill informed hysterics?
This is an eitirely bogus issue.
Sorry Albert but the “liar liar pants on fire” method of disqualifying information doesn’t work here. You’ll have to provide concrete data outlining the bonofide contractual agreements for the ports. You’ll have to excuse us for not swallowing your diatribe like an intern trying to get sponsored by weight watchers. See the above message 564 for an example.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pmOoops, I meant to reference message #562, that Dennis and Albert seem to be avoiding.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pmVery true Albert – what I cannot understand is that all the other countries where P&O operates has approved the deal for the DP purchase. The 6 ports is only 10% of the global deal – yet we seem to be bringing the heavens down and as you say ignoring facts and running into fog with tons of hysteria. Ignoring, perhaps the only Arab country with development plans for it’s future.
Comments to BushvsUAE – no country is perfect. Infact if we look at the history of our own country, the US has perhaps more imperfections than the UAE. I like to point out the German and Japanese examples from World war II. Just look at the investments and growth the three countries have achieved by doing business with each other.
UAE is a 34 year old country and perhaps some of the issues BushvsUAE pointed out may be true, that does not mean they are not taking security steps and procedures to correct them.
I believe most of the Democrats who oppose this deal is doing solely for political purposes. This is an election year and Bush has been beating the Dems overthe head with Security and terrorism the past 5 years, and they choose to play with the public who are (understandabl) hysterical about the ME regiona with limited knowledge about UAE as a nation – to hammer back at Bush. Sadly this is not good for anybody.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pmTruth Seeker, could you also compare all the “facts” as you say listed out in comment 562 and review if these are applicable to the USA as well.
I mean if we are facting it out with a nation like the UAE, obviously we should check if the same facts are applicable to us as well. I think it’s only fair, perhaps it can give us a picture who we are dealing with here.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pmOh and one more request – perhaps you may want to find out the current status of the “facts” listed under comment 562 i.e. has (or is) UAE taken steps to correct these practices/issues or ignoring them even as we debtate.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmRoshan, the #562 says the UAE is trying to take steps to correct the problem by attempting to assassinate the source of information Iqbal Ismail Hakim.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pmInteresting “BushvsUAE” Your are absolutely correct in that my assesment in #558 of the UAE Banking issue is a stretch. I try to think of it in term of what the US banking system would have done had the tables been reversed. How helpfull would the US banking system be if say the UAE goverment wanted to access the ENRON acounts. Track them and freeze them. I imagine they would have ran into the same wall here that we ran into there.
Or maybe another good example would be how difficult it is for the US to financial records from France to track down those responsible for the “Oil for Food” scandle. I really should’nt pick on France as there are lots of countries that are stone walling.
Your book that you are trying to sell has many points but I guess unless we buy the book we won’t be able to see if those points are backed by facts? I read what little is on the link. I found very little in the way of facts and more in the way of vaugeness.
I did find some of the authors comments interesting, I will quote them.
“I had joined Central Bank with a lot of hopes, but
soon realized that expatriate staff is seldom promoted and
there is no annual raise in the salary packet.”
“I demanded the same emoluments which they were paying to their British Staff deputed from the UK as I was not interested in selling myself cheap, noting the strict environment in Saudi Arabia”
“In any other country, I would have instantly become
famous, on picking up that one of the largest banks in the
world was deeply involved in laundering funds.”
He sounds like he is disgrunteled and perhaps a little disapointed he is not famous? What is that all about? I don’t recall the accountant who caught ENRON doing the David Letterman Show.
The point I was ultimately trying to make in my comment #558 is not to defend the UAE they have done some questionable things but to point out there are many other issues involed and perhaps it would be a good idea to take everything into consideraton before we rush to judgement. This is not a black and white issue. There are no easy answers.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pmComment to truthseeker re: 569 – and you “believe” that?
February 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pmComment to truthseeker re: 569 – “UAE is trying to take steps to correct the problem by attempting to assassinate the source of information Iqbal Ismail Hakim.”
You really believe that?
February 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] Fact: Federal law (50 USC App. 2170) requires the President or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign aquisition if the aqusition “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.” (from thinkprogress.org) [...]
February 26th, 2006 at 1:17 pmFact: That process has already taken place and been approved by the Presidents designee. Even though the requirement of the law has been fullfilled, the Senate and Congress will go beyond that law to demand a second approval process. Those Senators and Congressmen whom are in opposition have a vested intrest in seeing the deal fail because of the election year politics.
Fact: Raccial profiling is illeagal in the United States.The argument that Congress and the Senate are not racialy profiling in this matter, is that the opposition is not due to the fact that its an Arab company but a company controled by a foriegn state. This rings hollow as the Chinese goverment operates companies that own and operate port terminals in the US. There was and currently is no outcry about the Chinese companies when they were purchasing American port terminal leases. Prior Presidents have encouraged the Chinese purchases.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmFact: Bush and his grandfather Prescott Bush have been “Raccial profiling” since WW2.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pmGore Vidal on George Bush: “This is as close to a nobody as you can get as a President”
February 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pm“Bushshucks” do you have any proof of Bush’s racial profiling. Can you substatiate the claim? Perhaps a link to where you read this. Or is it because he has the most racial diverse cabinet that any President has ever had? Could that be considered racial profiling? Then do I understand that if you could give facts to prove that allegation your overall argument would be that because Bush breaks the law it is then OK for the Senate and Congress to break the law? I am not sure what the point of your argument is.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmHello “Gorevidaltrumpsbush”
Gore Vidal also said:
“There is not one human problem that could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.”
A little more info….
As a prep school student, Gore Vidal was a supporter of the America First Committee. Unlike other supporters of the movement, he continues to hold that the United States should not have become involved in World War II
Gore Vidal is most noteably known for his works of fiction.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:33 pmFact: Jeff Gannon, aka Dennis, was a (we’ll call him intern) most notably known as the male version of Monica Lewinsky for the Bush administration.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pmFact: The UAE is a fledgling fascist regime.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pm-Basically, that is all the CFIUS needed to OK this deal.It is also a fact that CFIUS is an agency that has a conflict of interest in making decisions like these, since CFIUS is virtually controled by the treasury(snow). Since the treasury dept ,rarely will not discourage any kind of foreign investment, it just goes to show that we may need an overhaul on just how we define the tasks of this panel. Another reason the system needs an overhaul was in light of the fact that nearly all of the preidents “designees” were aware of the deal until the %hit hit the fan. We need to keep the uproar alive so as to slow down the takeover the corporate facsists are planning.
correction-”Another reason the system needs an overhaul was in light of the fact that nearly all of the preidents “designees†were UNaware of the deal until the %hit hit the fan. “
February 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm“Bushshucks†do you have any proof of Bush’s racial profiling. Can you substatiate the claim? Perhaps a link to where you read this. Or is it because he has the most racial diverse cabinet that any President has ever had? Could that be considered racial profiling? Then do I understand that if you could give facts to prove that allegation your overall argument would be that because Bush breaks the law it is then OK for the Senate and Congress to break the law? I am not sure what the point of your argument is.
Comment by Dennis — February 26, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Well Denny…Once upon a time, wayyyyy back in the good ole days when the negro slaves picked cotton fo the massah, great grand pappy Bush let some negros sleep in the house with him to keep him compny at night…kinda like lil ole Condaleeza do. We call them bunch the house negros. Massah Prescott liked his house negros too thats why he double crossed the Nazis back in W W 2. But he still liked alot money mo so he let the Nazis sneak out the back doh. But that ole Mr Lincoln he messed things up awful good for massah Bush. The Bush massahs have been mad and lonely at night ever since…And thats why Bush wants to go to Dubai, the land with a whole bunch of slaves to buy…
February 26th, 2006 at 6:16 pmOK HailMassaBush….I take it that you will not provide any facts to support your claim that President Bush is guilty of racial profiling. I would gather from your comment and inference that Condilisa Rice is a “House Negro” that you are quite comfortable with racial profiling yourself and it would further seem that you don’t seem to think a person of color can fill a cabinet position and be qualifed to do so? Correct me if I am wrong. You have not said what your position for your argument is…..I’ll give you a freebie. Bush is a racial profiler…dirty rotten one to. OK you win that part of the argument. The question still remains because Bush racialy profiles, does that make it right for the Senate and Congress to do the same? That seems to be what your arguing for. Would you mind clarifying
February 26th, 2006 at 6:36 pmDennis, please don’t waste your energy with HailMassaBush. He is not debating, but aiming for blows below the belt.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/26/ports.dubai/index.html
I was browsing cnn.com and came upon this article (link above) especially the last para:
“In addition to commitments previously made to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, DP World has pledged its North American port operations will be “a completely separate business unit”; that it will not exercise control over the management of U.S. operations; and that the chief security officer for P&O’s North American operations will remain a U.S. citizen, unless the U.S. Coast Guard — which oversees security at American ports — agrees otherwise.”
February 26th, 2006 at 6:58 pmWhat congress is asking for has nothing to do with racial proliling, only what is provided for within the law
February 26th, 2006 at 7:02 pmyou have 2 much info.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:11 pmroshan – what is your point? i don’t see any.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:14 pmUAE is still a fascist regime!!! Security is not the main and only problem with this deal. It has nothing to do with racism or who runs security at the ports, that is known. Who would be most likely to pull some wool over the american people’s eyes, would be a more fitting question. While UAE’s history is short, it is duplicitous. Not an IDEAL situation, me thinks.
Sara,
I agree with most of what you are saying. I am a girl from the Us whose father just recently moved over to the UAE (about a year and a half ago.) I have lived in the UAE for about 6 months in 2005 and plan on going back there in July 2006 for about 2 years again. I went to an American International School there for the 6 months I was there. You are correct. It is mutlinational country, in the north there are many germans and russians, then again there are many europeans (alot from the Uk) and yes even Americans “big shocker” … I too wish Bush were not in power, but then again I don’t even have the right to vote, yet! As for respect of the nationalities,slavery, etc. I not only agree with Sara that you should not judge the people there but go see for yourself. I mean in the grocery stores for example,the women have their own grocery line to pay for their items, no men are allowed to pay at the (usually 2,3 or 4) registers. And at the round abouts on the roads, the women there know that they are respected highly, they feel free to walk across the busy street when cars are coming because, they expect every car to wait for them to cross. Now I am not saying all women there do that, I wouldn’t out of common sense do that because I know not every person abides by laws,respectfullness and other things like that. I would certainly not cross a busy road when cars are coming.
As fo rhte child camel jocking, didnt they recently pass a law in March 2005 that no child under the age of 16 is to be able to even participate in camle jocking TrojenHorseDubai? It is even reported on various news articles that using child camel jockeys has been illegal in the UAE under various international and domestic laws since 1980. Lok it up!
*The use of children as camel jockeys in the UAE has been prohibited since 1980 under:
o UAE Federal Labour Code No. 8 (1980): Section 20 prohibits employment of any child labour under the age of 15.
o The UAE’s independent Camel Jockey Association has had a rule since the early 1990s that using children younger than 14 or lighter than 45 kilograms as camel jockeys is illegal.
o In 1993 UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan banned the use of children as camel jockeys.
o In July 2002, Head of the Camel Racing Federation, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamdan bin Zaid al-Nahyan, announced that from 1 September 2002, using camel jockeys under 15-years-old and those less than 45 kilograms would be banned and offenders punished.
Yes still as I said earlier not all people will abide by the law, but look in your own backyard, start by racking up the non-law-abiders in your own country before worrying about others I mean I would know, look at our drug users and robbers of course many people would say yeah but look at other countries. NO! start with your own, I will do the same as gudk I am from the US and well and going to start living in the UAE. I have to go to school tomrrow so I will log off now and be back later, but as for now this is my entry.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pmSlowtrain,
February 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmI agree with you somewhat and then again do not agree that the issue is not about about the country itself, I believe it has alot to do with the country. Trust for one example.
To: Democratic checkfact
I agree with you 100% on your post number 499.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pmIf this goes thru ill be on the front line to fight to the … I have 5 kids and I work to hard to see what my gran parents & their siblings died for… “Freedom” funny we don’t have any freedom to stop this kind of bull crap?? If some one like me broke the law I would be put in jail.. But when the bush boys break the law we do nothing..
people smarten up… bush & Cheney clan have sold us out… its much more important to them to set them self’s & their investments up at any cost to the American people..
How do you bring a country down… with in…. don’t let this scum bag do it… refuse to pay taxes… are they going to throw all of in jail… hell no!!! The only way to get at these guys is money… don’t go to ant gas station that sells over seas oil.. Buy only USA… then do not pay taxes… that will be a start
The facts are to the dumb s h i t s that believe that we would be in control still. I have a couple of things to say to you.. Ask your self why would they want control of the untied states ports?? Do they sell goods?? Nope>>> but there must be some reason?? Dose it make lots of money?? Nope>>> if so why sell?? The fact is these people would have total access to cruceal fitel information on what port and what containers to smuggle info on to.. look at the uae owen ports.. Selling drugs to the south Asia sea countries.. Not to mention nuclear parts sold to rouge states.. It’s not what they want to smuggle in .. it what they want to smuggle out….
Why were at kick china ass out of the USA ports to..(The kettle calling the pot black) thank for that one Clinton.. They all work for the same rich people.. But did you really expect any different from this president?? After all it took a rigged election to get him in office.. God bless the usa.. We are going to need it.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pmPatriot – I am so sorry, but “Freedom” is not under attack here. This is the REAL ISSUE with most American public now – lack of knowledge on countries and cultures which make up the ME region i.e. anything Arab and Muslim = terrorists!!!
No one is giving up or selling this country, yes there is gloabl trade, i.e. American companies purchase assets of other countries every year. Please don’t confuse issues such as Freedom, America under attack, future of your family – just because a legit country is going to operate few terminals in 6 US ports. And for HEAVEN’s sake UAE is not BUYING NEITHER IS THE US SELLING ANY PORTS!!! DP world is only operating a few TERMINALS in the 6 US ports!
Jesus – Freedom my a**
February 26th, 2006 at 9:29 pmPATRIOT – I am just venting a bit, it’s very frustrating to hear people go on and on and on and them more about this stupid deal when absolute no knowledge of the facts. Sorry if sounded rude :(
February 26th, 2006 at 9:31 pmWhy Roshan I’ve never heard you vent ;}
February 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pmBut when people DO have facts u dont respond! The fact is we the people do not this fascist country cozying up to this corrupt administration. WE all know it is not a good deal for the american worker, and this deal was handled improperly and something needs to be done. WE CANNOT sit idle any more!!!!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:57 pmWell Tee zjack you used 6 exclamation points when you said we cannot sit idle any more….does this mean that you are going to push your chair away from you computer and go do something productive? I am sure I speek for everyone when I say we’ll miss your rants and tirades 8)
February 26th, 2006 at 10:03 pmDennis it’s amazing how you keep up all, these days on this site. I am only contributing my two cents on this topic – because I have lived, studied, worked and made wonderful friends in the UAE. I have SEEN how the UAE has developed from an improvished country to something pretty amazing in just a short 34 years since it’s independence from Britain. That too in the ME region, where western culture and civilization was not too welcome.
Yes the country has many many flaws, however the country and it’s rulers, led by Dubai is working tirelessly to have laws, policies, procedures in place. No place is perfect, but as an American I really want to support what America truly stands for – help those who try to be successful (having monies alone is not success, look at Saudi Arabia).
In this instance it’s operation of few TERMINALS in 6 ports in the US – but the issue is more than just terminals and ports. Some of you should truly do some homework on Dubai Ports and it’s humble beginings. If we turn away the first success story from the ME region – it’s going to have so many ramifications going forward for quite a few generations.
And PLEASE for god’s sake – there is no bomb heading your way because Dubai ports is operating TERMINALS in 6 ports in the US.
It is one reason to dislike Bush, however it is wrong to simply stand against everything he does or supports. BELIEVE ME I KNOW NOW!
February 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pmI meant to say BELIEVE ME I NOW KNOW!- taking a break, keep up the debtate.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:05 pmToday is the day! Congress returns on February 27
February 21, 2006
Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Boxer Urge Frist to Immediately Consider Legislation to Block Foreign Governments from Controlling Operations at U.S. Ports
Washington, DC – Four United States Senators today urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to schedule for immediate consideration when Congress returns on February 27 legislation being introduced by Senators Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton to block the sale of U.S. port operations to foreign governments. Unless President Bush or Congress acts, Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, is set to take control of operations at six major U.S. ports on March 2.
“This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports,†the Senators wrote to Frist. “We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27.â€
Menendez and Clinton announced on Friday, February 17 that they would introduce legislation to ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports. Today, Frist announced that if the administration does not reverse its decision to approve the Dubai Ports World sale, he will urge the Senate to act. Senators Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer joined Menendez and Clinton today in announcing that they would sponsor legislation.
“This issue transcends philosophical posturing and partisan bickering – it is about our nation’s security,†the letter continued.
The full text of the letter to Frist is below.
February 21, 2006
The Honorable William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Frist:
We thank you for joining the call of lawmakers who are gravely concerned about the Dubai Ports World deal. As you know, unless Congress acts, operations at six major U.S. ports, and other U.S. port facilities, will be turned over to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, on March 2. This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports. We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27.
Dubai Ports World has announced plans to buy P&O Ports, the company that runs commercial operation at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The transaction was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee made up of representatives of different federal departments and agencies.
Since that approval, however, numerous questions have been raised about the quality of that review and the prospect of a company owned by a foreign government controlling operations at U.S. ports. Only 5 percent of containers that enter the United States through ports are actually inspected, despite repeated warnings by security experts that ports are a prime target for terrorist attacks.
The president has the authority to reverse or approve decisions made by CFIUS. However, in the absence of presidential intervention, the Senate must show leadership and act quickly. We urge you to bring up for debate legislation we are authoring to prevent sales of U.S. port operations to companies owned by foreign governments. This issue transcends philosophical posturing and partisan bickering – it is about our nation’s security.
The Senate must act fast and show leadership on this issue because too much is at stake. We look to your leadership in assisting our efforts in making this legislation a priority.
Sincerely,
ROBERT MENENDEZ
United States Senator
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
United States Senator
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
United States Senator
BARBARA BOXER
United States Senator
February 27th, 2006 at 3:13 amI sure do wish that one party or the other would start talking in full truths….
“and the prospect of a company owned by a foreign government controlling operations at U.S. ports”
It is not a prospect..the Chinese are here already operating port terminals in the Untited States. It is selective posturing and outrage. I would question all the Senators sincereity. Will they push to remove China from our ports? The Senators are fully aware of the Chinese as Senator McCain has recently reminded them.
One way or another it has to be the same for all. If we are suspending the UAE deal then in all fairness we should imediately suspend the Chinese operations until there is a review.
Many of these politicians who oppose the deal have thier hands in the pockets of the Chinese. BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT. Watch in the coming days how the Chinese are granfathered in under this new law that they want to pass. Watch who supports it and you will see who is being payed in Yen and just how important American security is to them.
This isn’t about security it is all about elections. The Congress and the Senate is rife with people out for themselves both sides of the isle. They could care less about us until it is time for us to vote.
It is the nature of polititians to try and tell you what to think. It is your resposibilty as an Americans to think for yourselves. DON”T GET CAUGHT UP IN THEIR GAME!!
February 27th, 2006 at 4:16 amBush Puts Port Safety
In Some Dubious Hands
By: Joe Conason
Date: 2/27/2006
When Washington politicians protest the purchase of American port facilities by an Arab company, it is natural to suspect prejudice or protectionism or both. When normally supine Republicans such as Bill Frist and Peter King defy the Bush administration to join Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, the smell of election-year opportunism is almost overwhelming.
Yet in this case, the bipartisan opposition may be not only populist but prudent.
Certainly, there are valid reasons to question the White House decision to allow the purchase of the British company that now operates several major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates. While the President and his family may adore the Emirates—as they do most of the oil-producing dictatorships in the Persian Gulf—that peculiar Bush preference doesn’t necessarily reflect broader American interests.
Questions about the U.S. approval of Dubai Ports World should begin with the fact that it is not a private business but a government-owned enterprise. The “free-market†fanatics of the Bush administration and the conservative movement should explain exactly why they believe a corporation owned by a foreign state is an acceptable business partner, when they so vigorously oppose public ownership of any economic entity within the United States. Even the Cato Institute, that bastion of libertarian thought, is urging the approval of the Dubai deal.
Imagine the ideological fury among conservatives if our own federal government proposed to take over the operation of American ports (which might not be such an awful idea, considering the risk we now confront from nuclear or other threats that could be shipped into our cities by terrorists). They would scream about “socialism†and unfair competition with private enterprise. After all, they resisted the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11 because of their knee-jerk preference for private security firms.
Yet the tribal rulers of the U.A.E. evidently should be encouraged to profit from government enterprise, while the free people of the United States cannot.
The sheiks who run the Emirates permit no such foreign incursion in their own national enterprises. Although they give lip service to open trade—and encourage foreign participation in their designated free-trade zones—they strictly regulate foreign investment in key sectors. According to the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative, foreign investment in the U.A.E. is heavily restricted. Americans cannot own land there. No business can operate there without majority U.A.E. ownership.
Those rules reflect the harsh and undemocratic nature of the Emirates, whose government is rooted in Wahhabi Islam. The blessings of liberty as enunciated by the Bush doctrine have made little impression there—a country where labor unions are banned, free speech and association are unknown, and violations of human rights are common.
The State Department’s most recent report on human trafficking in 2005 denounced the U.A.E. for its failure to act against that evil practice. Busloads of workers are herded into the country annually under conditions resembling indenture, and planeloads of women are flown in for sexual exploitation. Even children are not exempt from the medieval labor market, with thousands of boys illegally imported to serve as “child camel jockeysâ€â€”which sounds like a stupid joke but is emphatically unfunny, as hundreds of them are maltreated and injured every year.
The ruling Emirate families make every important decision secretly and without accountability—in conditions that preclude transparency while encouraging corruption and intrigue. But the Bush administration insists that despite all those flaws, the Emirates are now our staunch allies in the war on terror.
Not so many years ago, those same ruling families were deeply involved in financing terrorism, dating back to their investment in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Emirate leaders formerly maintained intimate ties with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Indeed, a missile strike intended for Osama bin Laden had to be called off in 1999 because certain Emirate royals were present at his hunting camp in Afghanistan. Later, the 9/11 conspirators—who included at least two U.A.E. citizens—operated through safe houses and bank accounts located in Dubai, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
As President Bush pointed out in 2004, the U.A.E. also provided a convenient cover for A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist who operated an Islamist nuclear-weapons ring that threatened global security. Undisturbed by the usually meddlesome government, Mr. Khan’s deputy ran a computer firm in Dubai for years as a front for the ring.
Now, that unfortunate history notwithstanding, the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security promise that the Dubai deal will not jeopardize our safety. Bland assurances from Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Chertoff mean little, given their own poor records and stupid decisions. The United States has no obligation to trust its ports to the Emirate sheiks—and every obligation to place public safety above oligarchic profit.
http://www.observer.com/20060227/20060227_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp
February 27th, 2006 at 4:55 amWOW, dennis, such an ingenious response. Besides the fact that you cant make a point, and aside the fact that you can count to six(see #596), you have proven my point.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:01 amQuite frankly, this contract has opened the eyes of many americans, seeing how little attention is paid to our ports. And regardless of who is managing our ports, it can be said that a little more scrutiny, at the very least, is needed. The status quo is unacceptable, therefore ,since the administration, wont , and has no desire, to change the system, it REQUIRES congress to step in , and mandate reform.
It is the nature of polititians to try and tell you what to think. It is your resposibilty as an Americans to think for yourselves. DONâ€T GET CAUGHT UP IN THEIR GAME!!
Comment by Dennis — February 27, 2006 @ 4:16 am
Indeed. Thats why we aren’t going to get caught up in Bush’s game or dirty business deals. We won’t regurgitate his “newspeak” like his puppets Limbaugh, Hannity, and Oreilly. Thanks for the advice Dennis.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:34 amResponse to TrojanHorse comment# 601
“Emirates permit no such foreign incursion in their own national enterprises. Although they give lip service to open trade—and encourage foreign participation in their designated free-trade zones—they strictly regulate foreign investment in key sectors.
This country only has OIL and now DP world and Emirates Airlines and a few other companies which are huge yet not global.
What would you want them to do – give control of these companies to foreign companies.
Again – you really have to understand the UAE, it’s economy and income sources, especially Dubai. Do you think if the US had only 2 or 3 main companies which are global – we would let foreigners control them?
According to the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative, foreign investment in the U.A.E. is heavily restricted. Americans cannot own land there. No business can operate there without majority U.A.E. ownership”
Again – people choose to ignore the truth in it’s entirety and use “selective facts” or half truths. Yes this was true 4 years ago. UAE being a young country (34 yrs old) would not allow foreigners from owing land or property. However now they ALLOW foreigners to own land/property. My parents who are British and Candian citizens have been living there since 1969 and they own their first apartment for the past 2 years.
I could go on about the article – some of the facts listed are true – yes the UAE has a ruling family, infact each Emirate has a ruling family. Please do not compare or assess your understanding of “ruling faimlies” with those of Saudi Arabia. There is huge difference between the two. Also, living in the US, most often we may think Democracy is the best form of government – however there are positive aspects with the ruling family sort of government too – this is another debate altogether.
The article really picks and chooses facts – it’s truly is half-truths , just like Dennis points out in several of his comments.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:10 amWell I haven’t looked here in a couple of days and I see that the fearmongers have stepped up the rhetoric even more. The Republican bashing is why the Democrats will not be the party of the people again. If this debate is because of concerns about the security of the US then focus. The current review board for the acquisition of leasing rights was put in place by Congress after the scandal generated by the Clinton administration with regards to the Chinese acquiring control of the Long Beach Base after arms from China were found in transport to the gangs in L.A. and the campaign monies from Chinese nationals supporting the DNC and Presidential elections.
The review of the Dubai Ports buyout of O&P was reviewed and approved by the Congressionally mandated board. The notion that this was a quickie done by Bush is B.S., the first announcements for the buyout were in all transport and maritime newsletters and magazines in October.
If you are saying that for security reasons the ports should revert to local state/city control, think again. The US ports need a constant influx of money and resources to keep up with the volume of freight for both import and export. If this is left to local control then expect major tax increases and the usual patronage positions being created. This in turn will increase the prices for the goods and then a steady rise in the inflation rate. A quasi-public authority doesn’t work under a profit driven system, it survives by debt bonds and government assistance.
So, pick your poison. Another government black hole or a corporation that wants to be profitable and has the needed resources to provde the needed capital improvements and expansion capabilities while reducing costs.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:45 amAs I stated days ago no security concerns were raised when Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, making it the number 3 carrier in thew world. Deutsche Post is the German Post office and now has the contract for competing with Gr. Britains Royal Post.
Germany is a close ally of the US. But:,
A)It has been reported that Saddam Hussein had ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.â€
B)Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounted to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.
C)Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s
D)Officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project. An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.
Nice ally.
For another kick in the pants the KfW Bank was created by monies given to Germany under the Marshall Plan. Our taxpayers money at work again.
This should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets with thousands of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:24 amRequired reading
February 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPeople:
It is clear to me that the issue has been completely hijacked and derailed, at least in this forum, by people like Roshan, who would have you believe that the issue is what it is not. Their tactic is blackmail, pure and simple. In the least, it is gross misinformation, to create a diversion from the real issue. And everyone seems to be falling for it. The facts should speak for themselves and the implications thereof should not be minimized. Such should be enough for objective arguments. As stated in the introduction of this topic:
1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Above all the concerns, stemming from the above troubling facts, which no objective minded person would deny, minimize or rationalize, there is also the fact, that UAE is an Islamic country and undemocratic, where many people, motivated by religion, hate America and would do her harm or delight in seeing harm done to America. On 9/11, many Muslims all over the world, the UAE included, openly celebrated the destruction visited on America by fellow Muslims. Call them what you will, but they were Muslims, acting in the name of Islam. And if many Muslims did not see them as such, they would not have celebrated them, their leader, Osama bin Laden (whose face adorns countless homes from Nigeria to Indonesia, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, and so on) and their dastardly deeds on 9/11.
Most, if not all Muslims (and I don’t say this lightly) rationalize this act, one way or another by blaming America for supporting Israel or for the sake of Palestinians, as they always do when Muslims commit terrorists acts on the West and its interests, whether it is in America, London, Madrid, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia or East Africa. Some even claim that the 9/11 attack was masterminded and carried out by Israel and Jews in Americans.
The truth needs to be spoken, much as it might make people uncomfortable, much as many people, particularly Arabs and Muslims are quick to declare any connection of these terrorist acts to Islam “anti-Islamic†and people that voice them as “enemies of Islamâ€, which is a very dishonest response, considering the fact that the Islamic empowerment is not only anti-West, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Islam or conform to Islam, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose. This is precisely the reason for establishing and seeking to establish Islamic states wherever there is a significant populace of Muslims, e.g. Nigeria.
As one Islamic leader recently said of the West, “we will use your democracy to destroy you†and another declared in 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, “In the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it.” On September 7, 2003, Muqtedar Khan, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute and a Muslim, wrote of Muslims in America, in the New York Times “Many religious and community leaders were convinced that Islam would manifest itself in its truest form in this country. Some even proclaimed that one day America would be an Islamic state.”
We should not argue for the sake of arguing. The fact is that Americans are concerned for their safety, and rightly so. They have not only recent history backing them, but also the threat of persistent clear and present danger. This danger may not be state sponsored, but some states are more hospitable environments for those who pose that danger. The U.A.E, though involved in fighting that danger, is a more suitable environment for those who pose that danger than the U.K.
No honest person should fault Americans for being concerned for their safety and for seeking measures to ensure their own safety. The fact is that American ports have direct and serious implications for America’s security and should not be treated as just as another “merchandise†in global trade. If DP World is serious about recognizing the concerns Americans have on this issue, it should pullout of the deal altogether, at least out of respect for the people of this country. As for the administration, which is eager to reward the UAE for its corporation in the global war on terror, there are other ways to do so and to show America’s gratitude to the U.A.E, without jeopardizing the safety of Americans.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pm607 Required reading?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
This shows what helped start all this. Just think if we pissed off 1 person so much, by lying and pulling the aid and assistance to them and what could happen when we do it to whole countries and change laws or requirements mid-stream whenever we feel like it.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pmAn anonymous source has provided the Northeast Intelligence Network with a translated copy of a recovered Al Qaeda document from Afghanistan dated 14 May/June 2002. The text informs officials of the UAE that “we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.”
In light of the current debacle with Dubai Ports World, and fears of security vulnerabilities at 21 American port facilities, this document is further evidence of the need for a full, no-stone-left-unturned review of the transaction and its implications.
The full translated text of the Al Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan:
In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Mericful
Number ________ Date 14/May/June/2002
Al Jihad Qaida’s
{Get the idolaters out of Arab island}
To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of
Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:
We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of
injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize
with us in order to appease the Americans’ wishes which include spting,
persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently
detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive
organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its
custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in
which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the
Emirates’ social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.
You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and
monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.
Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not
serve your inteests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in
an embarrassing state before your citizens. In addition, it will prove your
agencies’ immobility and failure. Also, we are confident that you are fully
aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American
Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your
censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached. In
spite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with them and harm
them.
However, you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us.
There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decide to harm them,
especially, since you rely on shameless tourism in your economic income!!!
Finally, our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your
security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of
this nation. If you compel us to do so, we are prepared to postpone our program
for a short period and allocate some time for you.
Therefore, we ask you to release all the Mujahideen detainees since September.
The author of this official communication from Al-Qaeda to the government of the UAE :
أسامة بن
February 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pmUsama bin Laden.
Slowtrain…in response to #609
Correct me if I am wrong! Are you saying that all Muslims are suspect? Not to be trusted?
While your manner of delivery is outwardly calm your message is still one of hysteria. If you follow your argument to its inevitabe conclusion then for the security of the nation we should:
Expell all Muslims from American soil.
Not allow any Muslims to enter the United States
Not allow flights into the United States of any Arab airlines or any flight that contains a Muslim crew.
Not allow an Arab flagged ship or a ship with any Muslim crew members to use any of our ports.
Sever ties to any country that allows Muslims to run for politcal office. We can’t after all trust our security to a country that has allowed themselves to be infiltrated by Muslims.
We can’t trust them right? Bin Laden is as you say their leader…..
The truly sad thing is that there are many people who will buy into your bigotry and paranoia. The seeds you sow are the same ones Hitler planted.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWell this has been very entertaining. I’ve been following this thread since its conception and I must say there have been only 3 voices out of MANY on this thread that continue to beat the same Bush supporting drum. I’ve seen numerous times when these individuals are confronted for their obvious Bush slant, yet they attempt to play it off as being “fair and balanced” yadda yadda yadda. We know that old tune. We don’t buy it anymore.
We’ve had 5 years of Bush in office. What has he accomplished in that time? Within 1 year of his taking office 3000 Americans were murdered. Thats right folks, right under Bush’s watchful eye. Then Mr. Bush decided to send another 3000 Americans to their deaths and injured another 20,000+ on a wild goose chase. Since 9/11 Mr. Bush and his network of cronies have managed to terrorize this country in the process…sending us from one Orange alert to the next…whipping our fear to an all time high. Meanwhile, the primary suspect for the terrorist attacks, Osama Bin Laden remains at large. Amazing isn’t it?
After nearly 5 years of scaring the hell out of the American people, portraying the middle east as the face of evil, Bush wants us to do a 180 and embrace the very same people he’s been telling us were affiliated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Lets be honest, the UAE had more direct involvement with 9/11 than Iraq did, (ITS DOCUMENTED EVERYWHERE) yet we’ve managed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, kill at least 100,000 Iraqis, and more than likely be responsible for contributing to a civil war in that poor country. This btw is the consolation prize for being less affiliated with Osama Bin Laden that the UAE. So what do we do with the UAE when its obvious they launder money for terrorists and built their infrastructure on the backs of human slaves? We reward them by offering the UAE an opportunity to manage our ports for us. This is insanity, pure and simple.
For those of you that believe this ploy of villifying the American people as racists or unamerican for not supporting this 180/about-face, I really feel sorry for you. If you actually believe this Bush utopian fallacy, you must be absolutely despate to hold onto your house of cards. The American people are catching onto this hogwash the Bush Administration has been pulling on us. And I will tell you this, come the next election, you better make sure those ballot boxes are rigged if you want to re-elect anyone affiliated with Bush.
You don’t beat us over the head with fear of terrorism for 5 years and then tell us we’re bad people for not wanting to run over and hug the people you’ve been telling us we should be hunting down and killing. No one in their right mind would do such a thing. This time Bush & Co, you’ve gone too far. And sooner or later, your house of cards will fall.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmResponse to Dennis # 609:
This is precisely what I am talking about; the tendency to blackmail (as you seem to do here) anyone who would look at the issue objectively. You know exactly what you are doing, you clearly understand that people can easily be silenced or dismissed by calling them bigots and for fear of being accused of all the absurd conclusions that you have invoked. That should fool no one.
No one, certainly not I, is suggesting the highly dishonest and misleading assumptions you have arrived at. Yes, Dennis you are wrong in your analysis and your conclusion therein. I am not saying and I am not suggesting that “all Muslims are suspect? Not to be trusted?†I am simply stating the obvious, which no objective person can deny; the fact that there is a prevalence of sympathy and support towards Al Qaeda and other Islamic groups that has done America harm and continues to seek to do so in many Islamic countries including the UAE. For you to equate that comment to the list below is totally absurd.
I have always qualified my statements to make clear that I do not generalize nor imply a generalization of fault. If you could only, step out of your sentiments briefly, to patiently read and think about what I wrote and put it the specific relevant perspective, not on apparent persistent sentimental hangover and profuse generations, you will see my comments in their proper perspective. How could you arrive at the conclusions that my comments in 608 are tantamount to:
1. Expell all Muslims from American soil.
2. Not allow any Muslims to enter the United States
3. Not allow flights into the United States of any Arab airlines or any flight that contains a Muslim crew.
4. Not allow an Arab flagged ship or a ship with any Muslim crew members to use any of our ports.
5. Sever ties to any country that allows Muslims to run for politcal office. We can’t after all trust our security to a country that has allowed themselves to be infiltrated by Muslims.
6. We can’t trust them right? Bin Laden is as you say their leader…..
Try and be a little more objective, Dennis. Crying foul on every hand raised, does more disservice to those you claim to defend. In fact you are being overly patronizing to them and as far I am concerned that is a disservice and an insult.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pmOk, so the Americans have army bases all over the Muslim world and if a company in Dubai (Americans have an army base there too) wants to do business and run a few American ports, why is everybody up in arms? So what if two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE? It’s like the Pakistani government saying, “I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americansâ€. This goes to show the ignorance in the American government. I guarantee you that the people who are against this deal were not even able to point to the UAE on the map before 9/11. To those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm…And if I might add, Dennis, with reference to #611 and 613. Your conclusions are like saying that any association of slavery and segregation with the United States implies that all Americans are slave owners, racists and segregationists or that any association of the Holocaust with Germany implies that all German’s were Nazis. This notion utterly preposterous; what you are saying is that no one should mention these facts where they are relevant; else they are automatically labeled bigots. This is nothing but PC run amok.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pmTo those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
Comment by Farhan — February 27, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Farhan, I would go visit the UAE but they don’t allow anyone into the UAE that has been to Israel.
“Some Arab countries will not allow travelers to enter if their passports show any evidence of previous or expected travel to Israel. Other Arab countries apply the ban inconsistently, sometimes refusing and at other times allowing entry when a passport shows evidence of travel to Israel. If passport restrictions imposed by other countries may be a problem for you, contact the nearest U.S. passport agency, embassy, or consulate for guidance.”
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/regional/regional_1175.html
Also, if I was allowed into the UAE, I’d be afraid they’d revoke my Visa and force me into slavery.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2675
So maybe if the UAE decides to lift its ban on Israel, democratically elect it’s government, free it’s slaves, allow the US full access to it’s bank accounts associated with terrorism and money laundering, I might eventually support some trade with Dubai. I doubt I’ll come around to supporting the outsourcing of anything to any country.
One really good thing has come out of all of this though. Americans are alot more aware of the problem of outsourcing in general. And we’re also a bit more aware of how greedy the Bush administration is but most of us already knew that much.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:02 pmFarhan, I find it very difficult to believe that you cannot tell the difference in security implications between KFC or McDonald and the sea ports. Tell me you are not serious in that analogy.
Speaking of bases all over Muslim world, it is like faulting America for having bases in Japan and South Korea. The fact is that the Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that you allude to, as Japan and S. Korea, wanted those bases there because they provide security to those lands. As to whether the bases should be, is another matter altogether, perhaps one that should be subjected to a national debate such as this.
You can be sure that at then end of this debate more will be known about the UAE and the DPW and everyone will be better for it. That is the benefit of democracy. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same of “Muslim landsâ€(and I imply no sarcasm here), not even the UAE, especially if you continue to make excuses on their behalf and blackmail people who have valid concerns prompted in the first place, by realities that emerged from those lands.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pmBush is just plain stupid and thats all there is to say about it, this isn’t the first thing he has done to put our country at risk and anyone who thinks he is even a semi good president is not thinking clearly.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmWe cant visit UAE. Its on the US governments advisory of unsafe nations for its citizens to visit.
“I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americansâ€.
That statement is about as logical as the muslims who are protesting america because some danish guys drew cartoons depicting the prophet. And besides, the KFC and Mc Donalds in Pakistan are not owned by Americans.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmThere is a consistent thread here implicating Bush as the mastermind for this. I don’t get it.
I understand that specific people (departments) of the current administration briefly reviewed the deal between DPW and P&O and gave it approval to move forward. But how do we get from a private business deal between two foreign nations to an evil plan masterminded by G. Bush?
Granted, he is digging in his heels to protect it, but what authority does this administration (Bush) really have to force this deal through or even shut it down? Isn’t this ultimately P&O’s call on whom they sell to? I don’t think it’s a matter of America stopping the sale, but more a matter of continuing a business relationship with the new proprieter(s).
Bottom line, I’m glad everyone involved decided to delay until a further security review can be done, but shouldn’t the final word on what compromises we (Americans) make on business transactions and security for our nation include our elected officials in Congress…and not dictated one man (The President)and his appointed associates?
Whatever we do, I hope we don’t sacrifice a key element of our infrastructure for the sake of good business and political correctness.
I sincerely hope for all involved this isn’t about race or religion. I truly believe it’s about American people being justifiably nervous when talking about trusting people that helped our enemies with access to an important American economic and military resource. It’s that basic.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, how trusting should we be?
I don’t know.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pmI agree Nick with the exception of how we describe Bush. The word “Bush” is a euphemism is actually a reference to Bush and those that surround him. No one actually believes George Bush is smart enough to tie his shoes without being told how.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pmYour words Slowtrain:
The truth needs to be spoken, much as it might make people uncomfortable, much as many people, particularly Arabs and Muslims are quick to declare any connection of these terrorist acts to Islam “anti-Islamic†and people that voice them as “enemies of Islamâ€, which is a very dishonest response, considering the fact that the Islamic empowerment is not only anti-West, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Islam or conform to Islam, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose.
You have deftly labled Muslims who disagree with terrorist acts as dihonest. That is the equivelent of saying that Christians who disagree with abortion clinic bombings are dishonest. You use the word destroy quite deftly but we’ll go with it but lets shake it up a little bit:
“considering the fact that the Christian empowerment is not only anti-East, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Christianity or conform to Christianity, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose.”
Not exactly true but not exactly untrue. Leaves you with a real sinister feeling though.
For the record I din’t automaticaly label you a biggot. I didn’t come to that conclusion until your #609
February 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmDennis, your interpretation of the word “bigot” and its application is about as subjective as Bill Clinton’s usage of the word “sex.”
February 27th, 2006 at 3:34 pmNick I guess the civics lessons weren’t retained by most people.
Executive Branch- The executive branch of Government makes sure that the laws of the United States are obeyed. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of government. The Vice President, department heads (Cabinet members), and heads of independent agencies are included here. The President is the head of the executive branch and plays a large role in making America’s laws. His job is to approve the laws that Congress creates. When the Senate and the House approve a bill, they send it to the President. If he agrees with the law, he signs it and the law goes into effect.
If the President does not like a bill, he can refuse to sign it. When he does this, it is called a veto. Congress can override a veto, but to do so two-thirds of the Members of Congress must vote against the President.
Despite all of his power, the President cannot write bills. He can propose a bill, but a member of Congress must submit it for him.
In addition to playing a key role in the lawmaking process, the President has several duties. He serves as the American Head of State, meaning that he meets with the leaders of other countries and can make treaties with them. However, the Senate must approve any treaty before it becomes official.
Also, the President is the official head of the U.S. military. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To officially declare war, though, he must get the approval of the Congress.
The President and the Vice-President are the only officials chosen by the entire country.
Legislative- The legislative branch of government is made up of the Congress and government agencies, such as the Government Printing Office and Library of Congress, that provide assistance to and support services for the Congress. Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress has two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.Its primary duty is to write, debate, and pass bills, which are then passed on to the President for approval.
Other Powers of Congress
Makes laws controlling trade between states and between the United States and other countries.
Makes laws about taxes and borrowing money.
Approves the making of money.
Can declare war on other countries.
House Specific-
Start laws that make people pay taxes.
Decide if a government official should be put on trial before the Senate if s/he commits a crime against the country (impeachment).
Senate Specific-
Say yes or no to any treaties the president makes.
Say yes or no to any people the president recommends for jobs, such as cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices, and ambassadors.
Can hold a trial for a government official who does something very wrong (impeachment).
Judicial- The judicial branch of government is made up of the court system. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution established this Court and all other Federal courts were created by Congress. Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm“The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.”
UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) — A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company’s Web site.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company “could affect national security.” Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
“We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment,” said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.
“The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns,” said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee’s legal counsel a finding on the administration’s interpretation of the 1992 amendment.
Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.
“Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media,” he wrote.
According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.
Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.
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.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in U.S. ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.
“It’s very important we strengthen bonds … especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It’s important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination,” he said.
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a “dirty bomb.”
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A “risk analysis” is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship’s history, the cargo’s history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.
None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.
Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.
“The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues,” Muldoon said.
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans — that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
“The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now … but who’s to say that couldn’t change, or they couldn’t be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy,” said Muldoon.
In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.
CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier “precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection.”
“All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a ‘trusted’ shipper’s complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers,” CFR wrote.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Want to email or reprint this story? Click here for options.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
February 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pmWhhhhhyyyyy would you post all of that? That story is on every major news site. :(
February 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pmSteve –
Thanks for the refresher in civics. I vaguely remember the system and it’s complexities, but I’m usually too busy putting bread on the table to exercise that knowledge.
So in reality, I guess the Presidents power in this, except as cheerleader, is quite minimal? Interesting.
Do you think the ammendment for the required 45 day extension for security review was purposely ignored by the Bush Administration? If so, what now? Is the pending review mandatory, or was it a conciliatory measure by the Bush Administration?
Don’t get me wrong. I have no personal grind against Bush…heck I even voted for him. But I’m also not the greatest judge of character. I won’t fault a person based on rumor and baseless opinions, but the recent track record of the current administration does not instill the greatest confidence in their decision making process.
Steve, do you think the best interest of the USA are being served here in the port deal? You seem very well versed in the mechanics of our Government, so I would value your opinion on this.
Regards.
Thanks again.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:02 pmSorry about that Deez but it only seemed fair since Steve was attempting to sidetrack the discussion with excerpts from his junior high school American Government text book.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSlavery of Children and women in UAE
Jun 20, 2004
Morteza Aminmansour
The UAE was one of the 19 countries in the world that the United States blacklisted for human trafficking. The trafficking as a modern form of Slavery leaves no land untouched..
With camel racing heavily patronized by the oil rich rulers, who have least respect in the legislature, thousands of small children from Indian sun continent face a black and future.
Women migrated from Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, India and Eastern Europe have reported being lured with fraudulent promises of lucrative opportunities, legitimate jobs and then forced into sexual exploitation. Women who dared resist encountered harsh punishment from their employers, including physical assault. Their status as illegal migrants made the women particularly vulnerable to attacks by customers and traffickers alike. UAE has joined the growing global criminal activity of sex trafficking.
Exact number of victims is impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in UAE, there has been increase in the number of teen-age girls in prostitution (forced to work from Iran and other countries). The magnitude of the statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. The popular destinations for victims of the sex slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf (UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar). Traffickers target girls between 13 and 17 to send to Arab countries. The number of Iranian women and girls who are deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the Magnitude of the trade.
A measure of Islamic fundamentalists success in controlling the society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women.
The Islamic fundamentalists in Iran have for example expended tremendous amounts of time and efforts controlling, harassing, and punishing women and girls in the name of Islam. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the Streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the City. The trade is also international. Thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad. The Sex Slave Trade is one of the most Profitable activities in Iran today. Iranian governments officials are involved in buying, selling and sexually abusing women and girls. One factor contributing to the increase in prostitution and the sex slave trade is the number of female teens who are running away from home. In Tehran alone there are an estimated 25,000 Street Children, most of them girls. Many of the girls come from impoverished Rural areas. Some addicted parents sell their Children to support their habits…A number of prostitution and slavery rings operating from Tehran that has sold girls and women to Britain, France, and Germany. In Iranian Province of Khorasan, local police report that girls are being sold to Pakistani men as
They have passed and enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments of women and girls, enslaving them in a system of segregation.
Many Mullahs and officials are involved in the sexual exploitation and trade of women and girls. Women who are arrested for prostitution say they must have sex with the arresting officer. There are reports of police locating young women for sex for the wealthy and powerful mullahs. Some may think a thriving sex trade in a theocracy with clerics possibly acting as pimps is a contradiction in a country founded and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.
I would like to define the slavery as work done without any
compensation under the threat Of violence.
The modern-day of slavery are forced labor, forced prostitution. Slavery is technically illegal everywhere but they are estimated 27 million enslaved worldwide than ever before, while the moral argument against slavery has been won, the practical struggle to end slavery is by no means over. Camel racing in the Persian Gulf(UAE), for example is known to be slave work only by human rights experts or locals. Until poverty is overcome, some forms of slavery will always exist. Some argue that slave labor built up western capitalist development.
One of the fastest growing means by which children are enslaved today is trafficking. Girls as young as six are trafficked to work as maids in UAE and Saudi Arabia. Men and women and children live and work as slaves or in slave-like conditions. The sexual enslavement of children is part of the generation exploitation of children in impoverished parts of the world.
Literatures :
1-Slavery by Harry Rosenberg
2-Modern-day slavery iAbolish
3-Sex slavery new face of oppression of women in Iran By Sepehrrad and Hughes.
Morteza Aminmansour
Seattle,WA 2004
USA
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2675
February 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pmMorteza Aminmansour -
In my humble opinion, slavery is unacceptable anytime, anywhere. How does this relate to the Emirate of Dubai or DPW?
So, Dubai (DPW) should NOT(?) be entrusted with access to U.S. ports for human rights violation concerns? Is the Emirate of Dubai currently engaged in this activity?
I think we established that there are questionable portions of the UAE, but I think we need to concentrate on the immediate concern of the Emirate of Dubai, and specifically DPW and their standing as a prospective business partner.
Do we trust their ability to resist/thwart terrorist infiltration, or not? Human rights violations are disturbing where global associations are concerned, but the focus here is the prospect of facilitating another terrorist attack on the USA based on this port deal.
- “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” – Abraham Lincoln – August 1, 1858
February 27th, 2006 at 4:46 pmDeath in Dubai
Every year, scores of kidnapped children are smuggled from South Asia to the Middle East where they are maimed and killed, all for the amusement of the oil-rich rulers of kingdoms on the camel racing circuit
By Ron Gluckman/Dubai, UAE
ONE OF THE WORLD’S TOP JOCKEYS poses for a photo by the track. His smile says it all. Two front teeth are missing. Raji Shubir ranks with the youngest champions of the race course.
The six-year-old tyke has won scores of trophies. Yet he claims no secret skills. His success stems from two factors known well by the local press and punters. The tiny Indian child is the lightest on the track. And he’s always roped to his mount.
The races Raji runs are dangerous brushes with death in the camel pits of Dubai. No riches await young riders like Raji, who are stolen or bought from beggar parents in the slave markets of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. And fame is a foolish notion. Fans will never see Raji’s name in magazines, not even if he is trampled to death during a race or murdered afterwards by jealous child jockeys.
But die they do, kicked to death by camels or killed by rival baby riders. Such is the sad, short life in the fast lane for untold slave children shipped to the camel pits of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Raji, whose name was changed for this article, arrived in Dubai like hundreds of other children from the Asian subcontinent. He was sold by his pauper family to a servant of an Arab lord. Raji slipped through immigration, posing as the child of the Indian servant.
This is typical, according to authorities in India, who smashed several child-selling gangs during the early 1990s. The kids are sold for as little as US$3. Hundreds more are kidnapped, often toddlers as young as two.
UAE immigration and police turn a blind eye to the baby trade that serves the sordid sports of sheiks and sultans of the oil-rich emirates. Even tales of vicious brutality are brushed aside.
A five-year-old rider was beaten to death by other child jockeys last year. But neither he, nor his six-year-old assailants, were mentioned in media or police reports. “This happens often, too often,” says a local reporter, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Arab officials maintain the races are a vital link to the nation’s Bedouin birthright. “Our interest in camels is not because it is a good sport or because it is economically important to us, but because the camel is part of our heritage, part of the Arab environment,” said Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid, UAE Defense Minister, at the opening of the first International Camel Symposium in Dubai in February 1992.
Camels, called the “Ships of the Desert,” have an indisputable place of prominence in UAE history. A 7,000-year-old camel fossil drawing was found on an island near Abu Dhabi, capital of the seven-state confederation known as the United Arab Emirates.
However, modern camel racing resembles nothing from the past. These desert dwellers once raced camels at festivals and weddings, but they never rode so hard for so long. A camel must be trained for years to maintain the ungainly pace of a race. At full throttle, its legs all kick in different directions, a bizarre sort of bounding that is most abnormal for the animal.
And while camels were the mode of transport long before there was oil for the nation’s numerous Mercedes and Land Rovers, few racing camels actually originate in the UAE. Dubai, for instance, has an estimated 50,000 of the world’s 14 million camels, but only a fraction are born here. Thousands are imported every year from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Africa. The arrivals of the camels are heralded by local headlines that refer to the “VICs” – Very Important Camels.
The costs are astronomical, even without counting perks or adding expenses. Champion camels can sell for US$500,00 or more.
The stakes are equally high. Betting is banned by the government, which, instead, showers winners with prizes and publicity. The races are covered live by television, and written up in the sports pages of the local dailies. The camels become celebrities. The jockeys, often as young as four, are never mentioned. Instead, praise is heaped upon the rich owners of both animals and riders, who claim prizes that include luxury cars, four-wheel-drive trucks, yachts and cash. Last season’s finale in April, 1992 featured 15,000 camels and prizes that included over 120 luxury cars and jeeps and US$1.5 million in cash.
Yet participants insist that prizes aren’t the appeal of camel racing. “It’s a big honor to win,” says Khamis Harib, who keeps five camels and has been racing for 20 years. “It’s very competitive. If you win, you get your name in the newspaper and on television.”
More important than all the cars he has won, Harib says, “If you win, everybody comes to kiss you on the nose.”
Long ago, Harib himself was a jockey. “I rode in races when I was five or six,” he says through a translator. “But these days, all of them are Indian and Pakistani. For the past three years or so. Before, they were all from Dubai.”
There are 15 racetracks throughout the UAE, but nowhere is the sport bigger than in Dubai, which claims two of the six main stadiums, as well as a modern Camel Hospital near the larger of the two, Ned Al Sheba. The season runs from October into April. Races begin at four kilometers, gradually increasing to reach the full 10 kilometers.
The training is grueling, lasting years. Camels are fed a rich diet most likely monitored better than yours or mine. Special factories prepare the grain, with magnet sweeps for metal, and vacuuming of any dirt. Racing camels munch high-nutrition trail mix consisting of milk, dates, honey, barley and clover, sometimes spiked with vitamins. Yet camels often vomit this breakfast before or after the race. Trainers consider that a good sign, indicating a camel that is ready to run.
Camels move at four different speeds, which all involve unique leg patterns. At its fastest, the camel has been clocked at 65 km/h, but not for long. Females can maintain a steady speed of 40 km/h for a full hour, which makes them the more competitive camel.
Fifteen to 20 camels usually participate in each race, but the field grows to six dozen at the close of the season.
Riding camels can be difficult, on or off the race course. The single hump of Arabian camels makes seating a serious quandary. When tourists take short treks, camels are usually kitted with a rope saddle. You try and maintain this perch while holding the rein with one hand and hanging onto the hump with the other.
The bouncing during a race is treacherous. There are stories of children not only being roped to the mounts, but attached with Velcro. It’s a dangerous sport. Slipping from the saddle can result in broken bones or being dragged to death.
“Maybe this is why they are using foreign children,” says one western worker. “You won’t see any Arab children out there.”
During random visits to the Dubai track, children from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were all represented, but none from the UAE. The children ran in packs and behaved like standard street urchins. Many were charming as they posed for pictures in between races. All cowered from the trainers.
The tiny riders are kept to a painful pace. As soon as they finish one race, they are pulled from the camels, tossed in vans, and saddled up for the next, which starts within minutes. Jockeys wear the colors of their owners, jogging suits of blue, white, red and green, topped with tiny helmets or headgear. Many are equipped with small radios, so the trainers can signal every swing of the riding crop.
The children scream loudly at the starting line, shrieks of pure terror. This is part of the plan. Their startled cries excite the camels, pushing them to top speeds. Trainers say it is impossible to find Arab children who will scream with such fright at the camels.
As the camels lurch around the sandy track, a convoy of vans follow on a ring road. Video cameras catch the action, which is replayed on television screens mounted on poles in front of the viewing stands.
There are several segregated sections. Sheiks and sultans claim the luxury boxes in the middle, while common folk sit off to the right. The last section is for western guests and gawking tourists.
Tea and tiny sandwiches are served in an environment that reeks of colonialism, all the more startling since Dubai and the other emirates tossed out the British in the 1960s. Still, relations remain close. British nationals are the only visitors who can move with even a mockery of freedom about the UAE. All other visitors must obtain sponsors for visas, even the baby jockeys.
Yet, when child-selling gangs have been busted in India, the investigation never goes beyond the local buyers and sellers. Nobody questions how the kids can clear immigration so easily, when even the global jetset is grounded.
“We believe that the trade can only be stopped if the authorities in the receiving countries take steps to control the issuing of entry visas to children under 18,” says Anne Marie Sharman, a spokesperson for Anti-Slavery International, in London. She adds that the group has protested through British diplomatic channels and received assurances that UAE law prohibits children under the age of 11 from racing.
Indeed, Dubai officials, when queried for this story, responded with written statements that the tracks are closely monitored to ensure no children under the age of 11 are involved. However, no riders over the age of eight could be found during several spot checks of the track. “They become too heavy,” confided a trainer.
Middle East Watch, the human rights group, has been considering an investigation of violations in the UAE, including those reported in the camel pits. Anti-Slavery International worries about what happens when these children grow too old to race. Local reporters are afraid to probe that matter, as well.
“We’re not allowed to print news stories on the races, on what goes on behind the scenes,” says one local reporter, blaming strict state control of UAE media. “It’s simply too controversial. We can’t print anything critical of the government. It’s not allowed.”
Nor are race officials willing to lift the veil of secrecy for foreign reporters. Repeatedly denied access to the young riders, this reporter walked among them and was immediately accosted by a muscular guard. He twisted my camera gear and threatened arrest until a roll of film of the baby jockeys was surrendered – the first I’ve lost to a goon anywhere in over a decade of snooping.
“We’ve had problems before with reporters,” explains my guide, apologizing for the rudeness. Not of the races themselves, but my rough treatment. “They just wouldn’t understand in the West,” he adds.
But in Dubai, the situation is condoned at every level, including the government, from immigration authorities to police. It’s more than status quo, it’s what happens when society standards are set by the state. In a kingdom ruled by oil, where the media is muffled and everyone sets aside ethics to placate the sheiks and sultans.
Locals accept the races, even if they don’t participate. Arabs hold to the heritage line. Those of Indian descent, who might be expected to express outrage, especially since they outnumber Dubai natives by three to one, accept the situation as just another ugly condition of wealth. And westerners are noticeably nervous to broach the subject, especially when notepads are present.
“Besides, this may sound like bad taste,” says one western worker, “but the kids probably have a better life here than at home.”
Then, he waits for the taste of the statement to settle, and adds: “We all do.”
Ron Gluckman is an American reporter based in Hong Kong, who researched this story during a trip to Dubai and several other states of the United Arab Emirates in 1992. This report was soundly criticized by officials in Dubai and across the UAE, as was a widely-shown BBC documentary that followed this report. However, the facts in the story were never repudiated.
In 1993, the UAE announced a ban on child jockeys, but the law is widely ignored. In mid-1999, authorities rescued many children from the camel racing circuit, including one tyke who became a baby jockey after being smuggled in from Pakistan as a 5-year-old.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pmHmmm…What was this forum’s topic again?
February 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmResponse to Dennis #622 — I did not label “Muslims who disagree with terrorist acts as dihonest”, and I did not speakly deftly, I spoke plainly, by citing facts and experience.
Once again you have tended, perhaps inadvertently, to pull the discussion off track by inventing an issue of Islam Vs Christianity from my comments. In doing so, you have seem to betray the same deep seated sentiments of many Muslims towards the West as “Crusadersâ€. Christianity has nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, even if the “great Christian Commission” calls for Christians to win the world for Christ, it was not to be by anything similar to the “great Islamic Commission” of old (jihad) and what we have seen lately, where people yelling “AllÄhu Akbar†slice of the heads of innocent people or blow themselves up with explosives, just to kill as many innocent people as possible, even those actively working to improve their lives. This is not to say that all Muslims are guilty of this wrong, but it is wrong to discredit, dismiss or label anyone who talks about it, with regards to the motivations of those who are indeed guilty of the act.
There is no where in this world, not even Islamic countries, where Muslims enjoy more freedom than in places perceived as “Christian†or where Christians are numerically dominant. Even after 9/11, many Americas are risking their lives for the good of Muslims at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for Christians.
There you have it Dennis; you have succeeded in pulling me of track.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmNick, just got back in. Do I think Bush had a hand in this prior to last week? No, I’m sorry but this administration hasn’t been able to keep a secret from day 1. If now everyone on this board is claming that he has kept this quiet since October and has been able to keep thousands of congressional aides and staffers, along with the whole elected Legislature blind to this, man o’ man, if true, this man is a freakin’ genius. Put him in for 4 more years. As far as the initial review, I can only hope that the board acted as Congress mandated them to do. The additional 45 days seems to be a concilliatory gesture by Dubai Ports to help calm down the rhetoric.
I think that the discussions have been slamming Bush & Co. and never once has anyone said what the alternatives are. Would we have never said anything if P&O never sold, would the Chinese and the Danes and the others be left alone, status quo?
Do we federalize the ports, then hire the TSA scanners at $26,000 per year and trust them to scan for nuclear and/or other contraband entering our ports? The TSA has gone back to Congress for increases for training these people because there is no retention of help. My daughter was making the same money scanning and working the register at a local grocery store.
Whether federalizing or returning operational control to the local and/or state governments bring the same problems. Most of these Authorities are headed by politcal appointees, and as such may not be there after the next election. Every election hiring management doesn’t seem like a security minded decision.
What about the monies received by the local government that is facing a fiscal crisis, instead of upgrading or purchasing new equipment for the port, being spent to fix potholes, paying teachers, police, fire? No elected official in there right mind would stand before the electorate and claim the $100,000,000 sitting in the Port Authority account can’t be used for the offset.
Privatization is the best way out. The leasing entities have the operational and management knowledge to make the ports a profitable concern. If you want to enact laws regarding port security, fine, just make sure all ports are held to the same rules.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pmSlowtrain – Sincere apologies, however I have no intention to “Hijack” or “Sidetrack” any issue. See my response to your comments below
1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
Yes it was. You have to understand, in the Middle East UAE’s stance is that of Switzerland in the world i.e. neutral. They recognized the Taliban, however had little trade with the Taliban.
The strategic reasons why they recognized the Taliban is another topic altogether i.e. for example, there are hardworking families from Afghanistan in the UAE, who support their helpless families in Afghanistan. I am sure here in the US too we have Afghan families who would like to support their helpless relatives caught in the ruckus in Afghanistan – and you have the guts to point out the UAE recongized the Taliban. Why don’t you also say the US supported the TALIBAN and OBL and his croonies in the 1980’s – something the UAE has never done! Perfect example of “HALF TRUTHS” which Dennis has been pointing out. No country is perfect mate – however you have to LOOK at the corrections made going forward
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Perhaps it was, well let me accept it was a key transfer point. However, once this practice was discovered, it has become now illegal in the UAE.
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
You have to understand Dubai is the Financial center of the ME region. Transfer of monies thru the UAE banking system is equivalent to tracing monies from Warren Buffet to Wall street. Another example of Half truths – did all the monies ORIGINATE from the UAE or was it “transferred” thru the UAE using it’s banking system. Just the same way the monies were “transferred” into the US banking syste?
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Perhaps they want to keep it on their own. Do you think the US or any other country would give the monies back -once it was known OBL could not raise any legal claim to the monies.
Please take your comments on “Hijacking” somewhere else. It is pretty annoying, when all I am trying to do is bring some “awareness” and you keep implying the Hijack word.
Let me be clear – by “Hijacking” the 100 or fewer bloggers on this website – I will not achieve anything. However bringing an awareness to most of the folks on this blog on the UAE is something I really would like to do. Only because it is very evident, people in the US know little about countries in the ME region. Everything Arab and Muslim equates to bloody terrorism and I am so sick and tired of hearing it day in day out!
February 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pmPublished on Thursday, July 14, 2005 by TomDispatch.com
Sinister Paradise
Does the Road to the Future End at Dubai?
by Mike Davis
The narration begins: As your jet starts its descent, you are glued to your window. The scene below is astonishing: a 24-square-mile archipelago of coral-colored islands in the shape of an almost finished puzzle of the world. In the shallow green waters between continents, the sunken shapes of the Pyramids of Giza and the Roman Coliseum are clearly visible.
In the distance are three other large island groups configured as palms within crescents and planted with high-rise resorts, amusement parks, and a thousand mansions built on stilts over the water. The “Palms” are connected by causeways to a Miami-like beachfront chock-a-block full of mega-hotels, apartment high-rises and yacht marinas.
As the plane slowly banks toward the desert mainland, you gasp at the even more improbable vision ahead. Out of a chrome forest of skyscrapers (nearly a dozen taller than 1000 feet) soars a new Tower of Babel. It is an impossible one-half-mile high: the equivalent of the Empire State Building stacked on top of itself.
You are still rubbing your eyes with wonderment and disbelief when the plane lands and you are welcomed into an airport emporium where hundreds of shops seduce you with Gucci bags, Cartier watches, and one-kilogram bars of solid gold. You make a mental note to pick up some duty-free gold on your way out.
The hotel driver is waiting for you in a Rolls Royce Silver Seraph. Friends have recommended the Armani Hotel in the 160-story tower or the seven-star hotel with an atrium so huge that the Statue of Liberty would fit inside, but instead you have opted to fulfill a childhood fantasy. You always have wanted to be Captain Nemo in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
Your jellyfish-shaped hotel is, in fact, exactly 66 feet below the sea surface. Each of its 220 luxury suites has clear Plexiglas walls that provide spectacular views of passing mermaids as well as the hotel’s famed “underwater fireworks:” a hallucinatory exhibition of “water bubbles, swirled sand, and carefully deployed lighting.” Any initial anxiety about the safety of your sea-bottom resort is dispelled by the smiling concierge. The structure has a multi-level failsafe security system, he reassures you, that includes protection against terrorist submarines as well as missiles and aircraft.
Although you have an important business meeting at the Internet City free-trade zone with clients from Hyderabad and Taipei, you have arrived a day early to treat yourself to one of the famed adventures at the Restless Planet dinosaur theme park. Indeed, after a soothing night’s sleep under the sea, you are aboard a monorail headed for a Jurassic jungle. Your expedition encounters some peacefully grazing Apatosaurs, but you are soon attacked by a nasty gang of velociraptors. The animatronic beasts are so flawlessly lifelike — in fact, they have been designed by experts from the British Museum of Natural History — that you shriek in fear and delight.
With your adrenaline pumped-up by this close call, you polish off the afternoon with some thrilling snowboarding on the local black diamond run. Next door is the Mall of Arabia, the world’s largest mall — the altar of the city’s famed Shopping Festival that attracts 5 million frenetic consumers each January — but you postpone the temptation.
Instead, you indulge in some expensive Thai fusion cuisine at a restaurant near Elite Towers that was recommended by your hotel driver. The gorgeous Russian blond at the bar keeps staring at you with almost vampire-like hunger, and you wonder whether the local sin scene is as extravagant as the shopping…..
The Sequel to Blade Runner?
Welcome to paradise. But where are you? Is this a new science-fiction novel from Margaret Atwood, the sequel to Blade Runner, or Donald Trump tripping on acid?
No, it is the Persian Gulf city-state of Dubai in 2010.
After Shanghai (current population: 15 million), Dubai (current population: 1.5 million) is the world’s biggest building site: an emerging dreamworld of conspicuous consumption and what locals dub “supreme lifestyles.”
Dozens of outlandish mega-projects — including “The World” (an artificial archipelago), Burj Dubai (the Earth’s tallest building), the Hydropolis (that underwater luxury hotel, the Restless Planet theme park, a domed ski resort perpetually maintained in 40C heat, and The Mall of Arabia, a hyper-mall — are actually under construction or will soon leave the drawing boards.
Under the enlightened despotism of its Crown Prince and CEO, 56-year-old Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the Rhode-Island-sized Emirate of Dubai has become the new global icon of imagineered urbanism. Although often compared to Las Vegas, Orlando, Hong Kong or Singapore, the sheikhdom is more like their collective summation: a pastiche of the big, the bad, and the ugly. It is not just a hybrid but a chimera: the offspring of the lascivious coupling of the cyclopean fantasies of Barnum, Eiffel, Disney, Spielberg, Jerde, Wynn, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
Multibillionaire Sheik Mo — as he’s affectionately known to Dubai’s expats — not only collects thoroughbreds (the world’s largest stable) and super-yachts (the 525-foot-long Project Platinum which has its own submarine and flight deck), but also seems to have imprinted Robert Venturi’s cult Learning from Las Vegas in the same way that more pious Moslems have memorized The Quran. (One of the Sheik’s proudest achievements, by the way, is to have introduced gated communities to Arabia.)
Under his leadership, the coastal desert has become a huge circuit board into which the elite of transnational engineering firms and retail developers are invited to plug in high-tech clusters, entertainment zones, artificial islands, “cities within cities” — whatever is the latest fad in urban capitalism. The same phantasmagoric but generic Lego blocks, of course, can be found in dozens of aspiring cities these days, but Sheik Mo has a distinctive and inviolable criterion: Everything must be “world class,” by which he means number one in The Guinness Book of Records. Thus Dubai is building the world’s largest theme park, the biggest mall, the highest building, and the first sunken hotel among other firsts.
Sheikh Mo’s architectural megalomania, although reminiscent of Albert Speer and his patron, is not irrational. Having “learned from Las Vegas,” he understands that if Dubai wants to become the luxury-consumer paradise of the Middle East and South Asia (its officially defined “home market” of 1.6 billion), it must ceaselessly strive for excess.
From this standpoint, the city’s monstrous caricature of futurism is simply shrewd marketing. Its owners love it when designers and urbanists anoint it as the cutting edge. Architect George Katodrytis wrote: “Dubai may be considered the emerging prototype for the 21st century: prosthetic and nomadic oases presented as isolated cities that extend out over the land and sea.”
Moreover, Dubai can count on the peak-oil epoch to cover the costs of these hyperboles. Each time you spent $40 to fill your tank, you are helping to irrigate Sheik Mo’s oasis.
Precisely because Dubai is rapidly pumping the last of its own modest endowment of oil, it has opted to become the postmodern “city of nets” — as Bertolt Brecht called his fictional boomtown of Mahoganny — where the super-profits of oil are to be reinvested in Arabia’s one truly inexhaustible natural resource: sand. (Indeed mega-projects in Dubai are usually measured by volumes of sand moved: 1 billion cubic feet in the case of The World.)
Al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism deserve some of the credit for this boom. Since 9/11, many Middle Eastern investors, fearing possible lawsuits or sanctions, have pulled up stakes in the West. According Salman bin Dasmal of Dubai Holdings, the Saudis alone have repatriated one-third of their trillion-dollar overseas portfolio. The sheikhs are bringing it back home, and last year, the Saudis were believed to have ploughed at least $7 billion into Dubai’s sand castles.
Another aqueduct of oil wealth flows from the neighboring Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The two statelets dominate the United Arab Emirates — a quasi-nation thrown together by Sheik Mo’s father and the ruler of Abu Dhabi in 1971 to fend off threats from Marxists in Oman and, later, Islamists in Iran.
Today, Dubai’s security is guaranteed by the American nuclear super-carriers usually berthed at the port of Jebel Ali. Indeed, the city-state aggressively promotes itself as the ultimate elite “Green Zone” in an increasingly turbulent and dangerous region.
Meanwhile, as increasing numbers of experts warn that the age of cheap oil is passing, the al-Maktoum clan can count on a torrent of nervous oil revenue seeking a friendly and stable haven. When outsiders question the sustainability of the current boom, Dubai officials point out that their new Mecca is being built on equity, not debt.
Since a watershed 2003 decision to open unrestricted freehold ownership to foreigners, wealthy Europeans and Asians have rushed to become part of the Dubai bubble. A beachfront in one of the “Palms” or, better yet, a private island in “The World” now has the cachet of St. Tropez or Grand Cayman. The old colonial masters lead the pack as Brit expats and investors have become the biggest cheerleaders for Sheikh Mo’s dreamworld: David Beckham owns a beach and Rod Stewart, an island (rumored, in fact, to be named Great Britain).
An Indentured, Invisible Majority
The utopian character of Dubai, it must be emphasized, is no mirage. Even more than Singapore or Texas, the city-state really is an apotheosis of neo-liberal values.
On the one hand, it provides investors with a comfortable, Western-style, property-rights regime, including freehold ownership, that is unique in the region. Included with the package is a broad tolerance of booze, recreational drugs, halter tops, and other foreign vices formally proscribed by Islamic law. (When expats extol Dubai’s unique “openness,” it is this freedom to carouse — not to organize unions or publish critical opinions — that they are usually praising.)
On the other hand, Dubai, together with its emirate neighbors, has achieved the state of the art in the disenfranchisement of labor. Trade unions, strikes, and agitators are illegal, and 99% of the private-sector workforce are easily deportable non-citizens. Indeed, the deep thinkers at the American Enterprise and Cato institutes must salivate when they contemplate the system of classes and entitlements in Dubai.
At the top of the social pyramid, of course, are the al-Maktoums and their cousins who own every lucrative grain of sand in the sheikhdom. Next, the native 15% percent of the population — whose uniform of privilege is the traditional white dishdash — constitutes a leisure class whose obedience to the dynasty is subsidized by income transfers, free education, and government jobs. A step below, are the pampered mercenaries: 150,000-or-so British ex-pats, along with other European, Lebanese, and Indian managers and professionals, who take full advantage of their air-conditioned affluence and two-months of overseas leave every summer.
However, South Asian contract laborers, legally bound to a single employer and subject to totalitarian social controls, make up the great mass of the population. Dubai lifestyles are attended by vast numbers of Filipina, Sri Lankan, and Indian maids, while the building boom is carried on the shoulders of an army of poorly paid Pakistanis and Indians working twelve-hour shifts, six and half days a week, in the blast-furnace desert heat.
Dubai, like its neighbors, flouts ILO labor regulations and refuses to adopt the international Migrant Workers Convention. Human Rights Watch in 2003 accused the Emirates of building prosperity on “forced labor.” Indeed, as the British Independent recently emphasized in an exposé on Dubai, “The labour market closely resembles the old indentured labour system brought to Dubai by its former colonial master, the British.”
“Like their impoverished forefathers,” the paper continued, “today’s Asian workers are forced to sign themselves into virtual slavery for years when they arrive in the United Arab Emirates. Their rights disappear at the airport where recruitment agents confiscate their passports and visas to control them”
In addition to being super-exploited, Dubai’s helots are also expected to be generally invisible. The bleak work camps on the city’s outskirts, where laborers are crowded six, eight, even twelve to a room, are not part of the official tourist image of a city of luxury without slums or poverty. In a recent visit, even the United Arab Emirate’s Minister of Labor was reported to be profoundly shocked by the squalid, almost unbearable conditions in a remote work camp maintained by a large construction contractor. Yet when the laborers attempted to form a union to win back pay and improve living conditions, they were promptly arrested.
Paradise, however, has even darker corners than the indentured-labor camps. The Russian girls at the elegant hotel bar are but the glamorous facade of a sinister sex trade built on kidnapping, slavery, and sadistic violence. Dubai — any of the hipper guidebooks will advise — is the “Bangkok of the Middle East,” populated with thousands of Russian, Armenian, Indian, and Iranian prostitutes controlled by various transnational gangs and mafias. (The city, conveniently, is also a world center for money laundering, with an estimated 10% of real estate changing hands in cash-only transactions.)
Sheikh Mo and his thoroughly modern regime, of course, disavow any connection to this burgeoning red-light industry, although insiders know that the whores are essential to keeping all those five-star hotels full of European and Arab businessmen. But the Sheikh himself has been personally linked to Dubai’s most scandalous vice: child slavery.
Camel racing is a local passion in the Emirates, and in June 2004, Anti-Slavery International released photos of pre-school-age child jockeys in Dubai. HBO Real Sports simultaneously reported that the jockeys, “some as young as three — are kidnapped or sold into slavery, starved, beaten and raped.” Some of the tiny jockeys were shown at a Dubai camel track owned by the al-Maktoums.
The Lexington Herald-Leader — a newspaper in Kentucky, where Sheikh Mo has two large thoroughbred farms — confirmed parts of the HBO story in an interview with a local blacksmith who had worked for the crown prince in Dubai. He reported seeing “little bitty kids” as young as four astride racing camels. Camel trainers claim that the children’s shrieks of terror spur the animals to a faster effort.
Sheikh Mo, who fancies himself a prophet of modernization, likes to impress visitors with clever proverbs and heavy aphorisms. A favorite: “Anyone who does not attempt to change the future will stay a captive of the past.”
Yet the future that he is building in Dubai — to the applause of billionaires and transnational corporations everywhere — looks like nothing so much as a nightmare of the past: Walt Disney meets Albert Speer on the shores of Araby.
Mike Davis is the author of Dead Cities
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0714-31.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmResponse to WMDeezNuts
We cant visit UAE. Its on the US governments advisory of unsafe nations for its citizens to visit.
” Yet you have world class American sports personalities from Tiger woods to Andre Agassi, Lindsay Davenport, Williams sisters all playing in sporting events in the UAE.
http://www.dubaitennischampionships.com/
Yet I grew up going to a British run convent run by British, American and Italian nuns since I was 5 years old.
Yet – all the Americans who work at IBM, Microsoft, Haliburton AND tons of other American companies in the UAE continue to work and live there for decades.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pmSteve -
So the bottom line is, working with DPW may not increase the risk, or you are saying we need to encourage the security efforts in the private sector to compensate for what may be a perceived increase in risk?
Maybe we should be doing that anyway.
Good stuff. I am really looking forward to the way this is questioned and explained once the review begins. At the very least I am getting educated on this and I will be watching more c-span. :o/
I’ll check back for a reply later. Thanks for the breakdown and honest opinion(s).
Have a good night!
February 27th, 2006 at 6:21 pmRoshan it appears you were one of the lucky 5 year olds in Dubai that wasn’t forced to ride camels as a human slave and risk your life or beaten to death by rival slaves or used in a Dubai slave brothel. Maybe you should go out and buy a lottery ticket and see if your luck holds out.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pmNick,
I don’t honestly think the risk is any greater with Dubai Ports. I truly think that all of the current lease holders are lax in regard to security measures, much the way this whole country was prior to 9/11. We have to learn to stop pointing fingers and looking for monsters under the bed. Start making laws that actually provide for security and not just a knee jerk reaction. The titular head of our country isn’t the problem. It’s the ever flying rhetoric from both sides trying to justify their existence. The scary part is that the 2 parties are more alike, than they are different.
As you can see from some of the above blogs want to point fingers at a country emerging into a world market. Is camel racing enough to discredit a whole race of people. We don’t have to look too far back to see some of our blunders, yet the above comments make us feel better.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:32 pmSteve you obviously condone the human slavery existing in Dubai. You probably don’t have a problem with Dubai’s money laundering and terrorist dealings either. Infact, Steve you sound like one heck of a guy. I just wouldn’t want to leave you alone with any children…or women…or anyone else…
February 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm“…women were being trafficked into forced prostitution in Dubai”
Kyrgyz security forces have removed more than 60 women from a plane due to fly from the city of Osh to the United Arab Emirates. The Kyrgyz authorities claim that they have evidence that the women were being trafficked into forced prostitution in Dubai and other cities in the UAE. The women were mainly from Uzbekistan and it is believed that stringent checks carried out when women fly from that country to the Gulf have lead to traffickers taking them to Kyrgystan first. Osh may have become a hub city for women being trafficked to the UAE. Many of the women aged between 17 and 38 had been promised jobs as waitresses, but others knew they were going to the sex trade. One woman said “I knew that I would be making money there, perhaps through sex work, but I don’t have any choice. I am an orphan, with no job and no means to survive.†Sadly she may have found herself in conditions of slavery and earning little or no money for herself.
Despite clear evidence that women and children are being trafficked into the UAE, the authorities there continue to deny the problem and refuse to take further action. In reply to an ongoing campaign from Business Travellers against Human Trafficking, the Dubai authorities decided to make no changes to protect the victims of human trafficking or to break the link between trafficked women and children and local hotels. The campaign continues.
http://www.protest4.com/
February 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
Did you see a condoning of human slavery, money laundering or terrorist in my comments? If so the ink blots must have you crapping in your pants with fear. They seem to be addressing their problems much like we do, the war on drugs, controlling the borders, universal health care.. ………….. Make some more constructive advice and maybe we’ll move you up from a simian.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmSteve, you support a corrupt regime (Dubai) that promotes human slavery among other crimes against humanity, terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, etc. Apparently you can’t see anything beyond the money. I hope you bring alot of ice because it’ll be awful hot where you’re going.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:51 pmDubai and The Bush Dynasty Deal with the Devil
The Bush family has always had a deal with the devil.
As Kevin Phillips, the man who originally crafted the GOP “Southern Strategy” for Nixon, told BuzzFlash, the Bush family only excels at two things: corporate cronyism and stealing elections.
In the introduction to our 2004 interview with Philips about his book “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush,” we wrote:
“Few have looked at the facts of the family’s rise, but just as important, commentators have neglected the thread — not the mere occasion — of special interests, biases, scandals (especially those related to arms dealing), and blatant business cronyism” Phillips writes in his preface. “The evidence that accumulates over four generations [of the Bush family dynasty] is really quite damning.”
“Three generations of immersion in the culture of secrecy…deceit and disinformation have become Bush political hallmarks,” Phillips notes.
Entitlement, elitism, privilege, secrecy, mediocrity, corruption, financial cronyism, bailouts of family failures by the taxpayers — these are some of the true characteristics of the Bush Dynasty, according to Phillips.
To Phillips, however, the greatest threat to America posed by the Bush dynasty is not its inherent unfitness to rule. What most offends and angers Phillips is the threat that the imposition of the Bush dynasty on America poses to democracy itself. The American rebellion in 1776 represented the creation of a nation built on the foundations of a government elected by the people, not determined by the restoration to power of corrupt bloodlines.
So it came as no surprise to BuzzFlash that the secret, labyrinthian corporate cronyism of the Bush Dynasty would ultimately unfold in a betrayal as bold as turning over our port security to a nation that has enjoyed close ties with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. After all, Bush went to war with Iraq when it was Saudi Arabians who were the primary financiers of Al-Qaeda and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, and the Wahabi religious faction nurtured by the Saudi royal family is the leading Islamic promoter of terrorism against the West.
It has nothing to do with Dubai being an Arab nation (that would be racist); it has everything to do with Dubai (as part of the United Arab Emirates) cozying up to the terrorists who threaten us in order to buy them off and prevent an overthrow of their corrupt sheikdom, as is the case in Saudi Arabia.
The treasonous port deal brings into direct conflict the primary domestic and foreign agendas of the Bush Administration. The former “faith-based” coordinator didn’t call the White House staff the Mayberry Machiavellis for nothing.
First, you have the Rovian agenda of using the “appearance” of “a war on terrorism” to instill fear in the American Public and using that primal emotion to secure Republican victories in the voting booth (along with voter suppression and stealing an election or two, just ask Al Gore). Rove is a master of manipulating “perception,” not accomplishing national security goals. In fact, a feeling of national insecurity better serves his political goals than implementing measures to assure our safety as a nation. In short, the “war on terrorism” is a political construct.
Yes, there are terrorists out there, and we should protect ourselves against them, but that is precisely not what the Bush Administration is doing. They are as incompetent in fighting terrorism as they were in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. In fact, their policies increase the risk of terrorism and the number of terrorists.
While Rove played the domestic fear fiddle, Cheney used foreign policy to advance big oil and financial interests in the Middle East. The big oil/big banking/big business agenda has a lot of leeway for friendly relationships with nations that condone or overlook the terrorists in their midst. In fact, as we and others have pointed out, the Saudi Arabian and Dubai (United Arab Emirates) royal families have paid “insurance money” to terrorists in order to prevent themselves from being overthrown.
What the Dubai port deal represents is the seedy, treacherous, greedy, cynical underside of the Bush dynasty. They are experts at playing the American public for suckers while they and the Republican Party — which is really their Royal Treasury (along with private firms like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group) — gorge themselves at the trough of big oil and multinational corporate sellouts.
The Dubai arrangement is perfectly reasonable to Bush: it’s about the money. And as Kevin Phillips might tell you, for the Bush Dynasty, money and corporate cronyism trump national security any old day.
What you have here is a collision in the goals of our two real co-presidents: Rove for domestic affairs and Cheney for international affairs.
Maybe it was because Cheney was distracted with his big Saturday: a couple of beers, shooting some quail, shooting a man, followed by a “hold off the hangover” cocktail at the Armstrong ranch, an early night’s sleep and desperate calls to Mary Matalin to bail him out.
Or maybe it is because Rove was distracted by a still possible indictment for betraying the nation by being involved in the outing of a CIA operative specializing in the tracking of illicit weapons of mass destruction.
But whatever the cause of the distraction, it’s clear that the fault line of the insane clown posse has temporarily been exposed for all to see, even the Kool-Aid drinking rubber stamp Republican Congress.
It is like the San Andreas fault plates reaching the point of tension that they have to snap and cause an earthquake.
But remember that after an earthquake, things settle back to “normal” after awhile.
That’s what the Bush Dynasty is counting on.
Of course, it’s only our national security that is at stake.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/06/02/edi06016.html
February 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
I guess because I’ve tried to offer alternatives, I must support a terrorist
February 27th, 2006 at 7:25 pmI guess because I don’t see evil behind every door, I must support a terrorist.
I disagree with your racial statements, I must support a terrorist.
I think that they have a right to have any type of government that works for them, I must support a terrorist.
I realize that certain human rights violations haven’t been addressed as quickly as we might like, I must support a terrorist.
I think that they have big cojones for being allied with the US, living in that region, I must support a terrorist.
If you think the money laundering comes close to the amount the Columbian cartel washed through our reputable US Banks, I must support a terrorist.
Migrant farm workers living in cardboard shacks in the southwestern US, I must support a terrorist.
I disagree with your racial statements
Comment by Steve — February 27, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Poor Steve, a loyal Bush supporter who’s been a racist for years just loves finding an excuse to call someone else racist. Steve, are you jealous that Condaleeza gets to spend all that quality time with Bush?
A Gay Prostitute Inside Bush’s Inner Media Circle
Wednesday, 16 February 2005, 11:32 am
Article: Alastair Thompson
A Gay Prostitute Inside Bush’s Inner Media Circle
Scoop Links: A Jeff Gannon (James D. Guckert) Primer
Compiled By Scoop’s Alastair Thompson
In the past few days one of the most bizarre stories in US political media ever emerged via the blogosphere, and has since spilled out into the mainstream.
While on first blush the story appears a wee bit prurient – thanks to the involvement of prostitution and homosexuality themes – the central thesis of the story does involve some serious issues of journalistic ethics.
Jeff Gannon, a reporter from an extremely partisan web based news service operating under a false name, is working in the White House, and is even selected to ask questions of the President himself at his January 26th press conference.
This same reporter is discovered brazenly boasting about his access to classified CIA documents related to outed CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who publicly exposed the Vice President’s knowledge of the fact that the Niger yellow-cake documents used to justify the Iraq war were forgeries.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00178.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 7:40 pmComment to DubaiSlaveTraders # 639. Yup I have been quite lucky in my life mate. Including being lucky enough to have this debate with you.
Also lucky/blessed enough to have lived in six countries, including the UAE and the US – which enables me to give you some honest perspective of life in the UAE.
By no means will I claim, life in the UAE is better than the US. However neither will I say life in the US is better than the UAE. Both sides have positive and negative traits. If there is child jockeys in the UAE, there is child pornography and prostitution and broken families in the US.
DubaiSlaveTraders – PLEASE do not paint a foolish picture of yourself by highlighting ONLY the negative traits of a country, thereby presuming the worst – and accepting this is all that happens in the UAE.
If you are ever LUCKY enough to visit the UAE – then you will know what I am talking about here.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:46 pmSteve, I agree with your comment 101%.
Really – people have to open up and find out for themselves what is right and wrong, do not always listen to politicians, they always have an agenda.
It’s really sad – I mean the level of ignorance amongst most people on this site.
What is even worse is the hatred/dislike of Bush has now become blind hatred/dislike – to the extent that, even if he says or does something positive, it’s clouded in negativity.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pmWell then. In this case, since America is hesitating to let the UAE run American ports, I think the UAE should ask the Americans to remove their army bases from UAE land. Its a simple concept. An eye for an eye.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
Again slash and burn. If someones disagrees with you or calls you out on your moronic statements, slash and burn.
Why not try contributing to the human race by offering some real advice or suggestions instead of being the clown at the back of the room snickering because the teacher said penis.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:56 pmSteve, everyone knows that Bush supporters like you are the only real racists in the US. You guys sure are desperate to pass that label onto liberals.
“New Orleans Chaos Exposes Bush’s Racism” – Rapper – 05/09/2005
Rapper Kanye West has surprised viewers of an NBC benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims by accusing President George W Bush of racism.
Rapper Kanye West has surprised viewers of an NBC benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims by accusing President George W Bush of racism.
“George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” West said from New York during the show aired live on the US East Coast on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and Pax, just before cameras cut away to comedian Chris Tucker.
West, who is black, suggested moments earlier that delays in providing relief to survivors of the hurricane that hit the US Gulf Coast on Monday and flooded New Orleans were deliberate.
He said America was set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible”.
The Grammy award-winning singer, who was paired with comedian Mike Myers, also said in what NBC described as unscripted remarks, “We already realised a lot of the people that could help are at war right now, fighting another war, and they’ve given them permission to go down and shoot us.”
He was apparently referring to shoot-on-sight orders issued to National Guard troops to halt violence and looting in New Orleans.
West also criticised the media’s portrayal of blacks, saying: “I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food.”
In a statement, NBC said, “Kanye West departed from the scripted comments that were prepared for him, and his opinions in no way represent the views of the networks.
“It would be most unfortunate,” the statement continued, “if the efforts of the artists who participated tonight and the generosity of millions of Americans who are helping those in need are overshadowed by one person’s opinion.”
The program, hosted by Matt Lauer of NBC News, urged viewers to donate to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund.
It included 18 presenters, and featured performances by New Orleans natives Harry Connick Jr and Wynton Marsalis, as well as Louisiana native Tim McGraw and Faith Hill of Mississippi, which was also struck by Katrina.
-Reuters
http://www.abc.net.au/dig/stories/s1453009.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSo, is this article a way to improve the security of the ports? No, of course not. Just through out the racist label when you have nothing constructive to say. Get some other liberal yahoos to agree with you and hijack the post to where you feel comfortable. Don’t offer advice, smear.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:00 pmCommander-In-Thief
Ed Naha: ‘Bush: Any pout in a storm’
Posted on Monday, February 27 @ 10:26:50 EST
Ed Naha
After five years of sitting in the Oval Office, George W. Bush has finally found something he’s good at…pouting.
Last week, when Congress reacted with outrage at the Bush Administration’s allowing a company largely owned by the United Arab Emirates to take over eight American ports and threatened legislation to kill the deal, Bush collared every journalist within reach on Air Farce One to declare: “They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts, and understand the consequences of what they’re going to do. But if they pass a law, I’ll deal with it…with a veto.” Awwww. Poor widdle monkster.
He also quipped: “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 that a Great British (?) company. I’m trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of the world, we’ll treat you fairly.”
Well, for one thing, Sparky, the British outfit that previously ran the ports was a publically traded company, not an extension of a foreign government.
When ABC’s Jessica Yellin asked him about the political ramifications of the deal, Bush sniffed: “I don’t view it as a political fight. So do you want to start your question over? I view it as good policy.” So there! I’m taking my toys and going home, you poopy-heads!
Of course, a day later, the White House revealed that our pouting popinjay wasn’t even AWARE of the deal until last week after the secretive 12 member Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, CFIUS, had already signed off on it.
Headed by the Treasury Department, CFIUS has been quietly selling off American assets to foreign corporations with little or no Congressional oversight. In fact they’ve blocked only one out of 1,500 takeovers. They gave IBM’s PC business to China. They sold off strategic underwater cable assets for pennies on the dollar to an Indian government-owned company connected with India’s military.
And, if queried about their actions, CFIUS members can claim that they can’t reveal details because they’re all “classified.”
So classified that, this past week, when asked for his opinion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied: “I’m reluctant to make judgments based on a minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.”
In fact, not only were Bush and Rummy in the dark, but Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and even Treasury Secretary John Snow didn’t know about the deal until after it was finalized. Most of Congress found out via the media. Can you say “asleep at the wheel?”
And it gets better. According to “The New York Daily News,” because this purchase of American assets is by a foreign government, a 1993 congressional measure requires a 45-day probe because the deal “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could effect the national security of the U.S.” BushCo’s probe lasted 23 days. Pretty zippy, eh?
Also, according to “The Daily News,” Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion Dubai Ports World, was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operation to DP World for $1.5 billion in 2004, the year after Snow joined BushCo.
And Davis Sanborn, who runs DP’s European and Latin American operations was picked by Bush, last month, to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. (Can you see any cronyism here? I sure can’t!)
And the UAE tossed $100 million our way to aid Katrina victims, shortly before negotiations began allowing DP World to buy out the former U.S. port-runners, U.K.-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.
Ummmm.
And, as a bonus, BushCo. cut a deal with DP World stating that they don’t even have to keep any records about the business they do on American soil! Wow! Just think of the money they’ll save on book-keepers! Is this a great country or what!
After trying unsuccessfully to play his Islamophobia card and seeing that he was being accused by just about everybody of threatening our national security, Bush tried to play “Dubya Knows Best” with the nation. Dropping such bon mots as: “The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they’ll be comforted that our ports will be secure.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m not comforted by Bush calling OUR government, HIS government.
Try this one on for size: “This wouldn’t be going forward if we weren’t certain our ports would be secure.” This from a man who has done virtually nothing to secure our ports wherein only 4% of current cargo containers are actually screened.
And, then, there’s this masterpiece: “And so people don’t need to worry about security. The deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.” I actually wish they were concerned about our security…and grammar.
Bush’s bromides prompted CNN’s Lou Dobbs to declare: “Bush said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to ’step up and explain why.’ (The UAE should be treated differently than a U.K. company.)
“Well, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country’s enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. The money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And if those aren’t good enough reasons, I would just suggest I’m at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons.”
Oh, yeah, the UAE were big fans of both the Taliban and bin-Laden, too. And their ports have a reputation as a smuggler’s Heaven on earth, used by arms traffickers, drug dealers and terrorists, apparently including the assassins of Lebanon’s ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Oops.
On the plus side, Bush has proven himself a uniter not a divider, bringing together such diverse folks as Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin to fight the deal. As “The Daily News” put it: “That giant sucking sound you hear is one really big mob of congressional Republicans evacuating their side of the aisle en masse and galloping over to agree with their left-coast colleagues as fast as they possibly can that the summary sell-off of U.S. port operations to Dubai is your basic bad idea. Why, this whole heretofore sorrowfully rent nation has suddenly just come together as one.”
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission’s assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents “a persistent counterterrorism problem” for the United States.
Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal “looked very carefully” at information from the intelligence community.
“Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in,” Kimmitt said, “the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company.”
“Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission,” Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.
(Bush’s own State Department says Americans in the UAE “should exercise a high level of security awareness.”)
And the hits just came on coming.
Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions, if finalized, are evidence the administration was concerned about security. “There is a very serious question as to why the (company’s) records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction,” King said.
New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, whose port of Newark is part of the deal, has filed suit. “We were told that the president didn’t know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable,” Corzine declared.
Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida called Bush politically tone-deaf. “Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he’ll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge.”
Curt Weldon, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, stated: “This White House did nothing to communicate with Congress on this deal. With all the concern about port security going on in America right now, at a minimum leaders of both parties should have been brought in from both houses and had this deal reviewed. That didn’t occur. We’re not going to stand for that.”
Here’s the entire text of a letter sent to Blinky: “In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO!” wrote Republican Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina. (No hugs and kisses before the signature, either.)
Homeland Security’s chair King and New York Dem. Chuck Schumer are introducing emergency legislation to stop the port deal. Schumer predicted the legislation would go through Congress “like a hot knife through butter” this week.
“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said King.
Uber-Republican Bill Frist declared: “If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is place on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.”
“The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al Qaida is a silly thing to do,” said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit until 1999.
The raging storm prompted this exchange between Lou Dobbs and Frank Gaffney, author and President of the Center for Security Policy:
DOBBS: “Well let’s not be oblique about it. But the fact is that two terrorists from 9/11 originated from the United Arab Emirates. Funding for the terrorists originated, much of it, from the United Arab Emirates. It — the United Arab Emirates was a focal point in the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran and North Korea. I mean, that much, it’s incontrovertible.”
GAFFNEY: “Yes, and when you think that this company will have the opportunity to ‘in place’ personnel, it will have oversight of the cargo coming into these ports — and by the way it’s EIGHT ports now, including TWO that they will be operation for the UNITED STATES ARMY. (Note: emphasis mine.)
“And then you have the fact that they will be read in on the security plans for these facilities. It’s just mind-boggling, as has been said. I think the best that you can say is it’s sort of an attractive nuisance, like a swimming pool without a fence around it. You’re inviting terrorists to take advantage of these opportunities at our great expense, I’m afraid.”
Bluntly, a company owned by a foreign government will have access to the lay-out of the ports, the shift schedules, the security in place and the arrival times of overseas shipments. So, vot’s to worry?
By week’s end, Bush and Congress were still doing the Mortal Kombat polka.
Homeland Security Chief Chertoff defended the deal, then did a two-step when it was revealed that Homeland Security initially opposed it.
However, DP World agreed to (kinda, sorta) delay the deal for 45 days and hired former Senator Bob “Woody” Dole to lobby Congress on their behalf. (”Is that a loading platform or are you glad to see me?”)
And, getting all touchy-feely, the White House trotted out Dan Bartlett, head of communications, who vowed to convince Congress that the folks at DP World were A-OK.
“We’ve worked with them all across the world. They own ports across the world that send cargo to our country on a regular basis,” he said.
Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the state department, and now a private security consultant, countered that the UAE had a poor record of security: “Their ports are some of the biggest smuggling centers in the world.”
And what about those 45 extra days? Surely, they can be used to examine the company thoroughly. A-nope. Pouting Bush says the deal is done…even though he was out of the loop and didn’t know anything about it. So, Americans? Just live with it. So, how will those extra 45 days be spent? Well, Karl Rove has been exhumed from his crypt and he’s determined to talk the Republicans in Congress into giving a big thumb’s up to this fiasco. In other words, it’s arm twisting time!
(Either agree with Bush or you, too, can go hunting with Dick Cheney!)
Now, irony is something non-existent in Bushzarro World, but you’ve gotta love it. For five years, Bush has preached the Gospel of Fear for his own political gain. Fear the terrorists. Fear Saddam. Fear WMD. Fear attacks. Batten down the hatches. Buy that duct tape.
Now, when Americans have the good sense to actually catch a whiff of potential danger? He tells us that we’re idiots or Islamophobes and we should simply trust him. Because, as we all know, he’s been right, so far, across the board – from domestic debacles to his FUBAR foreign policy decisions. This is a short-pantsed pouter who has truly earned our trust. A-heh-heh-heh. And, as we all know, pigs can fly.
Perhaps syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker summed up this latest pile of Bushit best when she remarked: “The Greeks and Sigmund Freud had a name for what may ail President George W. Bush: Thantos. The death wish.”
Just another week in Bushzarro World.
And how’s that Iraq thaing going?
Source:
February 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pmhttp://mkanejeeves.com/?p=184
So, is this article a way to improve the security of the ports? No, of course not. Just through out the racist label when you have nothing constructive to say. Get some other liberal yahoos to agree with you and hijack the post to where you feel comfortable. Don’t offer advice, smear.
Comment by Steve — February 27, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
Awwww, poor Steve doesn’t like it when people use his own Republican smear tactics against him. You need a nap Steve?
February 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pmSecurity Concerns, Political Considerations
By Mark R. Levin
I have to address another knee-jerk defender talking point that I thought was so obviously flawed it didn’t require a response. Yes, the UAE is our ally now in the war on terrorism. For that we are grateful. And there are many ways to reward such support short of running various aspects of certain U.S. ports. I note that Joseph Stalin was our ally during WWII. Nonetheless, I can’t imagine FDR would have agreed to allow Stalin to have anything to do with our domestic ports in recognition of our alliance. Great Britain was also our ally during WWII. It’s our ally today. It was our ally before WWII. It was our ally before and after 9/11. So, of course there’s no objection to a private British company, with a long and solid record of operating ports, operating U.S. terminals/ports.
The truth is that we still know precious little about the security arrangements in this deal. The administration says the Coast Guard and Customs, not the UAE, will handle security; the administration also says that the UAE-run company has agreed to enhanced security requirements. Maybe the knee-jerk defenders can sort this out for the rest of us since it makes no sense to me. What we do know is that according to the deputy secretary of the Treasury, the truncated secret committee review did not include a national-security investigation, which he argued was “discretionary.â€
My hope is that Congress, the administration, and the UAE will agree to much enhanced security requirements (i.e., something more than leaving it up to the Coast Guard and Customs) and greater control over the company’s operations by U.S. personnel along the lines that my friend Michael Ledeen suggests on The Corner. Congress must also change its own pre-9/11 law which created this situation in the first place. It must overhaul the secret process it set-up to approve such deals, at least where national security assets are involved in foreign purchases. No, Congress should not undertake executive branch functions. Besides, there are simply too many demagogues in Congress to make such a direct congressional review workable. But Congress, in consultation with the president, could create the equivalent of an SEC, but with a security expertise. And there can certainly be more public transparency in the review process without revealing a foreign company’s critical proprietary information. It’s done everyday where U.S. companies purchase U.S. companies. If these improvements are made, they won’t be thanks to the knee-jerk defenders of the current secret deal, who arrogantly claim to know more than the rest of us when, in fact, they, like the detractors, know very little.
I don’t much care what the anti-Patriot Act, anti-NSA intercept program, anti-military tribunals, anti-detention Left — i.e., the likes of Chuck Schumer â