Making the country safer one port at a time

[D_Raay]

So the elephant in the room lately is the proposed sale of 6 major sea ports in the US to United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration has approved it, raising the ire of both parties.

For those of you who don't know, United Arab Emirates is a supporter of terrorists. They have financially backed some of the the very hijackers from 9/11.

6.8 billion dollars buys off your safety I guess. I mean we are talking about ports in New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Miami, New Jersey, and Baltimore.

The white house defends this by saying there have been "rigorous reviews" , and they are satisfied that there are no security risks.

I think actually a Republican said it best,"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

Lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.



"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

[enree erzweglle]

Outsourcing a $6.8 billion contract is questionable period.

[DJ_Skrilla]

Damn man bush IS lucifer... Why is it that no one in the US seems to mind him making decisions like this that are going to effect the COUNTRY long after his administration is ousted?

[ms.peachy]

Outsourcing a $6.8 billion contract is questionable period.

It's not new though; it was outsourced years ago - this contract was not previously held by a US company; it was operated by P&O (I think), which is a British company. But they have been bought out.

[ASsman]

Hah, he knows something everyone should know. Ain't no big bad all powerful Al Quada.

[SobaViolence]

how could Bush approve this and not see the backlash...i mean he used this exact fear of arabs to get his wars going, now he's gonna be all tolerant and multicultural?

[ASsman]

Wait for the spin.

Something like, "What ports? I don't know anything, about , hehe, what?". NEXT QUESTION.

[SobaViolence]

it just occured to me that terrorists can get past U.S customs, so how hard could it be for them to infiltrate an Arab company, to, at the very least, discover information...?

[ChrisLove]

Hang on? - the UAE financed 9/11?

Can someone post a link supporting this? Or any other UAE terrorist support?

[ms.peachy]

Hang on? - the UAE financed 9/11?

Can someone post a link supporting this? Or any other UAE terrorist support?
Personally, I don't get that the UAE has any interest in destabilising the US economy (any further...), as it is not in their own interests to do so. There's an awful lot of western money flowing into Dubai, and I suspect they'd rather like to keep it that way.

[valvano]

correct me if i am wrong, but they arent selling the actual ports, but the operation of the ports...sort of like outsourcing the running of a school's cafeteria?


if everybody is hellbent on us company running the ports (and I too feel uneasy about a UAE based company), maybe we could see if Halliburton, RJ Reynolds, Microsoft or Walmart are interested??


:eek:

[D_Raay]

correct me if i am wrong, but they arent selling the actual ports, but the operation of the ports...sort of like outsourcing the running of a school's cafeteria?


if everybody is hellbent on us company running the ports (and I too feel uneasy about a UAE based company), maybe we could see if Halliburton, RJ Reynolds, Microsoft or Walmart are interested??


:eek:
Yes you are correct val, the contract to secure these ports was sold to a company in UAE. However, unlike most other countries, this company is state backed and financed.

[D_Raay]

Hang on? - the UAE financed 9/11?

Can someone post a link supporting this? Or any other UAE terrorist support?
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/20/lt.01.html

KAGAN: OK, so politics aside, does the idea of this company that's owned by -- will be owned by United Arab Emirates company -- disturb you that they would be doing port security here in the U.S.?

ERVIN: It disturbs me greatly, Daryn. You know, if Tom Clancy were to write something like this in a novel, everyone would find it absolutely impossible to believe, and yet this is happening. I find it absolutely incredible.

People have to understand the background of this country, UAE. Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates. It was a source for financing for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. UAE was one of three countries, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being the other two, that recognized the Taliban before 9/11. And furthermore, it was a key tran-shipment country for some of the nuclear components that the Pakistani nuclear scientists A.Q. Khan shipped to Iran and to North Korea and Libya. So this is a real concern.

KAGAN: President Bush calls the UAE a leading partner in the war on terror. ERVIN: We do have good relationships with the government of UAE, but what I just mentioned about the other ties that that country has had to terrorism are also part of the record. And, therefore, it seems to me that it's disqualifying. A country like this should not be in charge of any port in the United States, and certainly not six of the largest ones that are very sensitive, indeed.

KAGAN: This particular company has been doing this since 1999. It just was owned by a British company that's now been bought by a United Arab Emirates company.

ERVIN: That's exactly right. Yesterday, for example, Secretary Chertoff was on the Wolf Blitzer show, "LATE EDITION," and he said we have to balance the twin imperatives, the paramount imperative security against the need to have a robust global trading system. Certainly, we need to have a robust global trading system, but that does not mean that our ports need to be controlled by a country with ties to terrorism.

KAGAN: Should there be no foreign control? Should no foreign company be allowed to own a company...

ERVIN: Well, Senator Mendez has introduced or will be introducing legislation to that effect, and I for one would be supportive of that. It's one thing for Britain to be in control of our ports, but it's quite another for a country like UAE to be. I myself would support that legislation.

I have got to believe that this deal is going to be revisited and I ultimately hope that it's reversed. I hope the president himself will intervene in this and that there will be a full congressional investigation.

[greedygretchen]

But with Bush's ties to Arab oil families...is it really so strange? It just reminds me of Farenheit 911 when Michael Moore pointed out who really has Bush's allegiance- the American people or the people who make him, his daddy, and all their friends millions? And Bush is going to veto any attempt by Congress to block this deal...we're fucking giving up our civil liberties so that our so-called "enemies" can watch our ports!!

[valvano]

But with Bush's ties to Arab oil families...is it really so strange? It just reminds me of Farenheit 911 when Michael Moore pointed out who really has Bush's allegiance- the American people or the people who make him, his daddy, and all their friends millions? And Bush is going to veto any attempt by Congress to block this deal...we're fucking giving up our civil liberties so that our so-called "enemies" can watch our ports!!


michael moore.......now there's a solid source for information.... :rolleyes:

[ChrisLove]

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/20/lt.01.html
.

I am unconvinced that this means that a government run UAE company is a security risk.

I mean Americans financed the Oklahoma bombing and the government transports all sorts of weapons - so presumably a US company also would be a security risk?

Ms.P is right the UAE has no interest in terrorising the states

[kaiser soze]

Well, it's nice to know that we are 100% sure the UAE has no ties to terrorists

we were also sure that the WTC could withstand a hit by a passenger airliner

[ChrisLove]

Well, it's nice to know that we are 100% sure the UAE has no ties to terrorists

we were also sure that the WTC could withstand a hit by a passenger airliner

You cant say that any Government has no ties to terrorists or that they are uncorruptable -some companys and governments are more risky than others - none are perfect for protecting US security and that includes the US gov.

So how does the UAE gov compare to a company like P&O? I dont know as I have not done the proper intelligence work but I would be surprised if the gov proves more corruptable than a private firm. but who knows - it certainly is not as black & white as you suggest.

[D_Raay]

You cant say that any Government has no ties to terrorists or that they are uncorruptable -some companys and governments are more risky than others - none are perfect for protecting US security and that includes the US gov.

So how does the UAE gov compare to a company like P&O? I dont know as I have not done the proper intelligence work but I would be surprised if the gov proves more corruptable than a private firm. but who knows - it certainly is not as black & white as you suggest.
With all due respect, why have the contract given to them?

As with almost anything the Bush administration does, it is shrouded in secrecy and spin and innuendo. One thing I have learned over the last 6 years is to NEVER trust anything these guys do.

We are supposed to be cozy with the saudis and the pakistanis too, but they are the ones flying planes into buildings that weren't supposed to come down.

So, whatever, if you can feel comfortable with this then I won't argue with you. Just seems there could be a much better and less risky deal to be made with someone else.

[ms.peachy]

we were also sure that the WTC could withstand a hit by a passenger airliner
Uh, no we weren't. It wasn't actually designed for that.

[ms.peachy]

So how does the UAE gov compare to a company like P&O?
DPI (Dubai Port International) bought P&O, that's why this issue is coming up now. However, I am wondering why there wasn't this same outcry when DPI bought CSX World Terminals (which was an American company) for over a billion dollars a year ago? It's not like this is a new player in America's ports, folks.

[SobaViolence]

the outcry isn't logical...it's emotional.


it's excess from the 'blame arabs for 9/11' mentality that got them into afghanistan and iraq...only now, it's back-firing on bush.

[kaiser soze]

Uh, no we weren't. It wasn't actually designed for that.

actually I was wrong...no we, but the on site construction manager, structural engineer, and the architects who designed them said so

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html

[ms.peachy]

actually I was wrong...no we, but the on site construction manager, structural engineer, and the architects who designed them said so

707's. And not deliberate hits fully loaded with fuel. The thinking at the time was that they needed to plan for the possibility of a plane that was coming in to land at Kennedy or Newark that might have gotten lost in fog and misjudged their course, and so would be nearly spent of fuel. Remember, it wasn't the impact that caused the structural failure, it was the subsequent explosion and resulting high temperatures that caused the floor joists to buckle and start to 'pancake' downwards.

[abcdefz]

So the elephant in the room lately is the proposed sale of 6 major sea ports in the US to United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration has approved it, raising the ire of both parties.

For those of you who don't know, United Arab Emirates is a supporter of terrorists. They have financially backed some of the the very hijackers from 9/11.

6.8 billion dollars buys off your safety I guess. I mean we are talking about ports in New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Miami, New Jersey, and Baltimore.

The white house defends this by saying there have been "rigorous reviews" , and they are satisfied that there are no security risks.

I think actually a Republican said it best,"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

Lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.



"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."




In other news: Rhode Island has been sold to a group of private investors and will be covered and turned into a shopping mall.*






























































see also: Schizopolis

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by greedygretchen
But with Bush's ties to Arab oil families...is it really so strange? It just reminds me of Farenheit 911 when Michael Moore pointed out who really has Bush's allegiance- the American people or the people who make him, his daddy, and all their friends millions? And Bush is going to veto any attempt by Congress to block this deal...we're fucking giving up our civil liberties so that our so-called "enemies" can watch our ports!!

by valvano

michael moore.......now there's a solid source for information....

List all the inaccuracies (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16) of Fahrenheit 9/11. I wish it was just a bunch of bullshit, but fuck if he didn't research the facts. Moore is guilty of being smarmy and putting his mug in front of the camera too much, but he was really right on in his facts. 7 minutes. Taliban. Bin Laden. It is on valvano, it is really on.

Spokespeople for this administration have stated that the United Arab Emirates company was thoroughly investigated to make sure that there would be the best safeguards to protect U.S. ports from terrorism.

Are these the same folks who swore that Iraq had WMD?

[valvano]

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

:D

[yeahwho]

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

:D
That is some pretty damning evidence. none of it links to anything, no footnotes, 0 reference point, much of it is total bullshit. Deceptions about the movie perhaps, but deceptions are all. I read all 59, several are the same thing and a few at the end are not deceptions, they are flat out character assassination.

This documentary is not 100% on the target, but it is stronger than you think it is. Much stronger. The real problem is Moore made it entertaining to a wide audience, something the pro Bushers are incapable of doing. You can't hide this shit away, nor can you pretend like it doesn't happen. I'm not seeing Moore hiding away from anyone.

These 59 deceits stacked up next to Moores facts don't hunt to well, and thats a fact jack.