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.â€"
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.â€"
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