Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on February 21, 2006, 01:34:41 AM
-
"House Homeland Security chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., has been one of the most vocal, saying secret assurances obtained by the government don't go far enough to protect the nation's seaports."
What possible SECRET agreements could have been made. And how come they are secret. I heard Chertoff go on and on that all meetings on this sale were secret and he couldnt reveal a thing.
Something stinks....................... ....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/port_security;_ylt=An3OgZyfsEOGNPMOp2ARFdWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
-
1. Your link doesn't work.
2. As far as I heard, the British concern that was managing our ports was bought out by the government of UAE.
It is a tricky situation... we can't give UAE easy access to our ports as every group can have a few bad apples to take advantage of security. Nor can we deny access to one of the few groups that have (up for debate) backed the United States, it would show preferential treatment as well as a lack of trust and further encourage the myth we are prejudiced against Muslims.
What do you do? Either way, its the wrong answer...
-
Simple solution is to only let US companies handle these things. That way no one gets their feelings hurt and we can financially nut crush whoever screws up the security of the ports. I don't understand why we have to outsource every damn thing we do in the US to other nations companies.
-
It isn't that simple... it is okay for the British company to run our port operations, but if a Muslim country has access it is suddenly not allowed for a foreign group to maintain operations?
Don't get me wrong, I'd MUCH rather have things like this not out-sourced, but I guarantee it will come off as prejudiced towards the Muslims... and I agree, even if it is for a good reason.
-
Why not just give them the airplorts while were at it?
I wouldn't give any muslim country, or person anything on US soil, thats just asking for another attack.
-
1. I find it amazing some are actually trying to stand on the argument of offending muslim nations when the 4th generation of warfare in our conflict has already been decisively lost with clusters like Abu Gaurib, and our other gulags..
any hearts and minds crap will have little actual effect on their dispostion. (the recent worldwide overreaction over cartoons is proof of this..)
2. Since 4th gen is no longer available (or in a limited sense with high input low output to show in the future) My opinion is we must resort to tried and true tactics.. This includes not letting the enemy or potential enemy into your port infrastructre...
3. UAE while westernized is still a muslim country and hence a potential pandoras box for double agents for Osama's minions..
While the above (#3) is a worst case scenario how bout eliminating the variables for peace and mind factor alone.. save money by not having to create some new department or resources from existing departments to play day care with this company who most likely is not up to no good, but who wants to take that chance, hence resources must be applied.
In times of war you dont offshore to your potential enemy thats all that needs to be explained its not rocket science.. Where's all the "secure our ports" xeno thought process that was exhibited last election.. Evaporated along with whatever political capital I guess..
DoctorYo
-
Jimmy Carter agrees with Bush on this one :huh
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation
Interesting bedmates, Most Republicans and Democrats alike are in agreement that is not good.
-
Key infrastructure should stay in the hands of the government or atleast a domestic company (if there is such a thing in the modern world)
But then im just a pinko commie from yurup
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Jimmy Carter agrees with Bush on this one :huh
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation
Interesting bedmates, Most Republicans and Democrats alike are in agreement that is not good.
I bet ya Clintstone and George the 1st would agree as well, means a close look is in order.
shamus
-
You guys just don’t think Machiavellian enough around here….where are the conspiracy theorists? :furious
(sigh…)
Guess I’ll have to do it myself……. (Puts on asbestos garmets)
The reason the Administration agreed to sell off port operations in six U.S. cities to the UAE, a nation known in the past to support terrorists and be used as a transshipping point for weapons and nuclear materials between Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and other sunny destinations, is that they *need* another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, …..and this is one way to facilitate that.
They’re probably all mad at Osama for not making good on his last threat of an attack on the mainland from January.
Another attack would be a boon to this Administration: It will immediately justify all the transgressions of the administration over the past four years. There would be a sudden retreat of Congressional opposition to the Commander In Chief in light of a “new threat”. There is also the predictable knee-jerk reaction of the media, public, and Congress to hide-under-the-covers, plead for protection, hand over any other rights or freedoms for that protection, and look for scape-goats. It would be an inquisition, probably headed by a jack-booted Vice President.
If an attack was successful enough, da Prez could declare martial law, suspend all elections “for the duration of the emergency”, create a Committee of Public Safety to “root out all traitors on American soil”, and declare himself King. :O (those are Democrates hitting the floor you hear)
(I should produce this drivel for a living) :cool:
Sad thing is….this has probably all been gamed out, and exists in a classified report, by someone working for someone at Disneyland on the Potomac. Tax dollars at work and all that.
"Flame On!"
-
ok, who were / are you in your other account?!?!?!:huh
-
Originally posted by Delirium
It isn't that simple... it is okay for the British company to run our port operations, but if a Muslim country has access it is suddenly not allowed for a foreign group to maintain operations?
Don't get me wrong, I'd MUCH rather have things like this not out-sourced, but I guarantee it will come off as prejudiced towards the Muslims... and I agree, even if it is for a good reason.
You know what screw what the Muslims and other Arab nations truly think. The only semi-friend we have in the middle east is Jordan; who knows why but things have been good between Jordan and the US for a long time and they still have a fair amount of the population that would love to watch our major cities go up in flames.
I read something on this yesterday that the Coasties had run an exercise for a nuclear threat coming into one of our eastern seaboard ports. The nuke was "found" before it entered the port at Charleston, SC but they didn't disarm it in time and the simulated immediate deaths were close to 10k at one pop with several hundred more dying daily after that due to fall out and radiation.
So to me as I said screw some nations sensitivity for a little while. They will get over it...but we can't do that because we are all to busy playing the appeasement and politically correct BS game.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Jimmy Carter agrees with Bush on this one :huh
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation
Interesting bedmates, Most Republicans and Democrats alike are in agreement that is not good.
I actually watched the Carter statements. He said that he trusted that Bush and company was doing the right thing... That is a far cry from agreeing with it.
I dont trust them...
-
Its always about the $$$ and stock options...................... .
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
W aides' biz ties to Arab firm
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006
Breaking news update: Top Republican leader against ports deal
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
ok, who were / are you in your other account?!?!?!:huh
Who me?? Honest, only been playing this game a little over a month, and posting a few days. But I cut my teeth on Usenet newsgroups YEARS ago on stuff like this.... a veteran of rec.motorcycles (aka "ReekyMoto") during the Flame Wars..... this place is like a Jungle Gym at McDonalds compared to that unmonitored troll zone.
-
So who exactly approved this deal? It wasn't the people McClellan claimed it was. And why is Bush so hell-bent on seeing it happen, to the point of threatening his first-ever veto?
Could it be $$ for business interests?
Bush to veto efforts to stop UAE port deal
by kos
Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:57:44 PM PDT
Bush has never used a veto. Never.
But he finally found something worth expending some of that almost-expended "political capital" on -- protecting the right of the UAE to take over port security.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.
Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.
"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?
RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.
This weekend? The deal was approved Feb. 13.
-
I'm seeing the BIG Picture here now....Rumsfeld was the one behind the grassy knoll in Dallas. It all makes sense now!
:huh
Mac
-
Something definitely isn't right here... for a President that has been a hawk on national security to encourage this type of deal has quite the odor.
I still question your sources and I'll be much more inclined to believe it when news sources echo the same.
-
Hello Silat,
Just got finished speaking with a friend of mine in D.C. about this.
His read is that it isn't an issue of dollars its an issue of approach to the war. Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush and the State Department generally are still of the opinion that the best approach to problem of Islamic terrorism is the fostering of democracy in the Middle East. Part of their approach includes treating most of the Islamic states not openly opposed to the US as "our best friends" and offering whatever concilliatory gestures they can to Islam generally. This includes most recently the State Departments appalling capitulation on the Cartoon issue, in essence saying that the Western Press should abide by Sharia Blasphemy laws. They also want to maintain the facade that we can do business with Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as if they were our friends and not part of the overall problem. Hence all the encouraging words about Pakistani, Saudi, and Gulf State help in fighting "the war on terror" and so on.
For Bush to call off the port deal would be to admit essentially that far from being our "best friends" that those states cannot be trusted and that they are ultimately an integral part of the overall problem. Which is why he made the statement: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.' The majority of American people are gradually coming to the realization that we can't trust or be best friends with states that promote an ideology that calls for our subjugation or destruction and that our security must be put first no matter how difficult that will ultimately make "Peacefully" establishing democracy and so they can answer the president's silly question.
So while the Bush administration is still pushing the notion of regime change without having to invade every Islamic state, House and Senate Conservatives are increasingly unwilling to pay the possible price for that, and consequently both Frist and Hastert promised efforts to stop the port takeover:
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist, R-Tenn. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
Frist, who spoke to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where he was on a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues, said he doesn't oppose foreign ownership, "but my main concern is national security."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., joined Frist, saying the administration needed to "conduct a more thorough review." Without offering details, Hastert said in a letter to Bush that "this proposal may require additional congressional action in order to ensure that we are protecting Americans at home."
- SEAGOON
-
" "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
oh thats an easy one.
Because nobody from Britain hijacked 4 planes slit the pilots throats and crashed them into buildings murdering 2,000 people.
Because Britian hasnt had ties to terrorists, Hasnt smuggled nuclear technology to countries known to support terrorists
Had people from Britain done this I'd hold a British company to a higher standard also
-
This should be interesting... I can understand the diplomatic rewards of this, but if a terrorist act is linked through the ports via the UAE it will definitely crumble Bush, his presidency, and his legacy.
Call me a coward, but if I was in charge I would not risk it.
-
At least this opens up the debate on whether globalization is bad for national security.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
It isn't that simple... it is okay for the British company to run our port operations, but if a Muslim country has access it is suddenly not allowed for a foreign group to maintain operations?
Don't get me wrong, I'd MUCH rather have things like this not out-sourced, but I guarantee it will come off as prejudiced towards the Muslims... and I agree, even if it is for a good reason.
Well lets see here was any of the terrorist that attacked the usa on 9-11 from england?
Nope If my memmorie serves me right it was all but two of them from suadi arabia:O
The simple fact that in a time of war this countries ports would be controled by ANYONE but america is as stupid as it can be.
Mr Bush what are you thinking you arrorgant SOB!
Is you butt buddies the suadi's that much more important than you fellow citizens?
I'm sorry but if there ever was a time for impeachment it is now.
Oh and I could care less if it hurt mooslims feelings:cry
-
Very typical of this administration. I would expect nothing less from our president.
-
Originally posted by Swager
Very typical of this administration. I would expect nothing less from our president.
Well I really hate to admitt it but I agree with ya.
I voted for this man twice because there has been no further attacks on american soil since 9-11 i always thought he was on the ball.
But this really makes me question his mental status.
I mean 99% of the country including his own party thinks this is a really bad idea yet he thinks its right.
Sounds very dillusional to me.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
" "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
oh thats an easy one.
Because nobody from Britain hijacked 4 planes slit the pilots throats and crashed them into buildings murdering 2,000 people.
Because Britian hasnt had ties to terrorists, Hasnt smuggled nuclear technology to countries known to support terrorists
Had people from Britain done this I'd hold a British company to a higher standard also
The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was born in a London suburband is the son of an English mother and Jamaican father.
Not saying we are any better, Timothy McVeigh was from our home country.
-
Holdin leave the slack jawed liberal dribble to MT he's much better at it than you.
-
I call 'SHENAIGANS' on Bush! Possibly he's taken a fall off a bull and thinks he's a vietnamese prostitute.
(http://donor.tr-tr-tr.ru/i/lj/minglee.jpg)
"me love you long time!"
-
Originally posted by fartwinkle
Holdin leave the slack jawed liberal dribble to MT he's much better at it than you.
What a powerful rebuttal, you should join your debate team.
-
Here's a great quote on the subject. Hey someone forgot to tell congress that the government(i.e. executive branch) looked at the issue and it's ok, don't worry about it. :rofl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security
Bush: "I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
-
Originally posted by fartwinkle
I mean 99% of the country including his own party thinks this is a really bad idea yet he thinks its right.
Sounds very dillusional to me.
Okay RC51.
-
On a personal level I have a real heartburn over turning over a port operation to a foriegn country other than a very trusted ally. There is already far too little screening of what is being transported through those places much less letting a middle east country have direct responsibility for one, much less 6.
I understand Bush wanting to "throw a bone" to a ME country, but I think giving them the keys to the front freaking door is not a good idea. There are other trade options that can be used to help a "friendly" muslim based country.
It's sad to say that when the conflict with terrorists started out for us that it was not specifically a religous based conflict, on this side of the ocean. The insistance of the terrorists claiming that it is has likely made it one for us now. Until the muslims get off of their dead butts and start turning these barbarians in, I for one cannot take them seriously that they are not tacitly giving approval for the actions of the terrorists. Talk is cheap, but until they back it up with action and stop the actions of their own people in doing this type of action I simply don't believe they don't condone and support it.
The same goes for any confidence I have in giving a muslim based nation an open door in our security on our own soil.
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
Okay RC51.
?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was born in a London suburband is the son of an English mother and Jamaican father.
Not saying we are any better, Timothy McVeigh was from our home country.
Ok I'll give you that.
but on average whom is more inclined to inflict death and destruction on this country as a whole. A Fellow american, A Brit, or an Arab?
On Another note.
I dont see how or why we would or should be contracting out security to our ports, international or other wise to any company OTHER then a 100% american owed and operated one period.
This isnt just stupidity.
This is insanity
-
Originally posted by fartwinkle
Holdin leave the slack jawed liberal dribble to MT he's much better at it than you.
I was pointing out fact, not "slack jawed liberal drivel"
Note please that:
1. Most on this board (including me) would consider my views tend to be more conservative than liberal.
2. Dribble is what babies and basketball players do, "drivel" is the word you were attempting to use, and incorrectly as what I said was fact and drivel is "Inarticulate or foolish utterances" and my comments were neither.
So as my comment was neither liberal nor drivel, you are incorrect on at least two of three counts.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was pointing out fact, not "slack jawed liberal drivel"
Note please that:
1. Most on this board (including me) would consider my views tend to be more conservative than liberal.
2. Dribble is what babies and basketball players do, "drivel" is the word you were attempting to use, and incorrectly as what I said was fact and drivel is "Inarticulate or foolish utterances" and my comments were neither.
So as my comment was neither liberal nor drivel, you are incorrect on at least two of three counts.
I know what dribble means and that what I meant.
-
so you don't like democrats playing basketball... check.
>edit I still don't know what that has to do with the facts I pointed out.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
so you don't like democrats playing basketball... check.
LOL got me on that one:)
-
all you guys saying saem old tired easy to see - reasons and ideas..
EXCEPT..
this is about the UAE stepping up and becoming a more helpful player in the WAR AGAINST MUSLIM FACIST...UAE will begin helping the USA as a stepping stone and partner in this war as they see it as longevity for there easy livn in there brand new cities and our money
I do not know yet which way this should go..i still can understand many differnt sides..waiting to get more info about this..
but the idea of the Dirka-Lurkas's brother putting a "box' ina cargo container at our ports doesnt sound great
hard to sell UAE getting our ports when they do not accpet Isreali state or support a TAliban gov in Afghan
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
..... this place is like a Jungle Gym at McDonalds compared to that unmonitored troll zone.
Sig material, thanks :aok
-
Originally posted by Delirium
This should be interesting... I can understand the diplomatic rewards of this, but if a terrorist act is linked through the ports via the UAE it will definitely crumble Bush, his presidency, and his legacy.
Call me a coward, but if I was in charge I would not risk it.
Delirium....
" Being Smart , is not Being a Coward ! .....
This plan of Bush and his crew sucks !:mad:
Regards....
Checkers
-
I don't care who is in charge of the ports ... presently we check what 7% of all containers?
Unless that is upped to 100% there is a loophole. 100% would cost too many $$$. It ain't gonna happen.
There will always be a security issue at our ports regardless of who or what is watching them
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
all you guys saying saem old tired easy to see - reasons and ideas..
EXCEPT..
this is about the UAE stepping up and becoming a more helpful player in the WAR AGAINST MUSLIM FACIST...UAE will begin helping the USA as a stepping stone and partner in this war as they see it as longevity for there easy livn in there brand new cities and our money.
Again but a little more bluntly this time. F*** the f***ing f***ers from the Middle East. They have done little publicly to show support other than allowing some US military units to stage out of their nation in support of operations around the PG region. But thats not the issue. The issue at hand is that Bush (yes I voted twice for him because he was at the time the lesser of two evils) has said the government has looked at the issue and says its good to go. What government agency thats not "secret" and actually has oversight from the people its supposed to protect?
I will be on the phone today to my congressional delegates giving them a piece of my mind. Simply because I know the direct numbers to their desks and don't have to pass through the BS catchers in the front offices.
I urge all of you to do the same if you have the opportunity. Take this to the government and let those that you elected know exactly how you feel.
-
as for this deal, you think they are going to import every employee from the ME? Or maybe they are going to hire good ole us of a joe redneck shipyard types to work for them at a fraction of the cost it would be if they had the bed bath and beyond head dress group wandering around our ports..
anyone know the details of the agreement or are you just knee jerkin to the talking heads? maybe they are required to hire us cits to actually run the show
considering alot of programming outsourced is being done by evil cartoon hating muslims. who is to say they haven't planted jihad bugs in the code which will disable and crash corp america computers at the assigned "Allahu Akbar" hour?
-
they bought the British company that manages the loading and unloading of cargo.
the security of the ports is run by the coast guard and homeland security.
the worry is the UAE would have access to the security procedures used.
the people that actually handle the cargo all belong to the longshoremen's union.
-
American ports should be owned and run by AMERICANS its that simple
anything else is ignorant at best.
-
Everybody knows that regardless of what the contract says, the ports are run by the International Longshoremen's Association.
Lucca Brazi is not gonna allow the docks to be run any other way.
Badda Bing
-
Much ado about nothing. The people that work at the ports are Americans.
In addition, the port authority and the customs aren't going anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Much ado about nothing. The people that work at the ports are Americans.
In addition, the port authority and the customs aren't going anywhere.
Ahh but if you own the management then you can get around those two items there. I still say keep them out of managing anything on US soil.
-
Folks have a point that this is a transfer of the Operations of these ports, not the Security, but you have to realize that operations and security have to work together to keep things running smoothly, and the access people working the operations side will have to security issues is where the potential for security breeches lies. The port situation is bad already, this can potentially make it much worse.
I don't buy into the whole good will aspect for U.S.-Middle East relations. Many Arab nations are literally playing both sides here, and making money in the process. They don't crack down on the fundamentalists, because they themselves do not want to become targets of those radicals. Many of them in fact support, if not openly, the terrorists and their ideals (or for the economic and power possibilities that become available) when they attack western interests. And IIRC it is still considered rude for one muslim to question another muslim's beliefs and how he acts on those convictions.
They'll take whatever bone we throw to them....begging is very commonplace, especially with what I saw in the streets of Baghdad, so I don't see why it would be much different at the political level in the region.
Many of those same beggers in the streets in Baghdad often were selling information on our movements to the insurgency that same day.
UAE is a "partner" in the war on terrorism because we "bought" their support with massive contract deals. Most, if not all, of those little white trailers that the soldiers live inside while in Iraq that you may have see in the news..... all the one's I've ever seen were made in the UAE. Stamped right on the frame.
Many of the Coalition was bought this way. Britain got many security contracts, such as those with Blackwater, and we've purchased many tens of thousands of HESCO Bastions from them for force protection. Russian contracts included the purchase of an ungodly amount of all types of wood products from them, and I saw many Russian military air transports in and out of BIAP. Turkey got trucking transportation contracts. South Korea got many service contracts for laundry, cleaning, and cooking facilities. And so on....
Throw them all the money and contracts you want to at Middle Eastern countries, they'll still play both sides, if not out of their convictions, then out of simple self interest or survival.
(Pakistan is a perfect example of this --- the Pakistani government cannot go after terrorists in their western frontier --- which they really don't control anyway--- or allow the American military to do so, because it could mean the fall of the government from a revolt of the people of Pakistan who support the terrorists more than they do the west.)
They may even conduct a few raids and round up the usual suspects to placate the west, get another bone thrown to them....then hand the prisoners the shovels to dig themselves out with.
Things are only getting worse.
-
After some research, I'm begining to get a little more comfortable with the idea of DP World's involvement in our ports ...
here is an interesting commentary in their newspaper Khaleej Times - interesting publication.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/comment/2006/February/comment_February20.xml§ion=comment&col=
still not convinced though...
-
This admin has used fear of terrorism as a catch phrase to be re elected. Now they wonder why the public is up in arms over a ME country buying port operations. There own advertising is biting them in the bellybutton now.
-
When did Hillary Clinton get a job in the Bush administration? It's
bipartisan tards shooting from the hip on this issue.
-
I think you could say that the admin didn't anticipate this reaction. They should have taken steps to educate and inform the public if they strongly believe that DPW will be no danger to our security...
-
The system is busted.. the 'vetting' process on foriegn investments in US industries; many of which are utterly critical for national security, particularly from a logistics standpoint; has ONE time in the last 25 years turned it's thumb down on a sale.
ONE time.
Since the 'committie' is a Treasury based operation, it's goals are NOT National Security.. and in fact most sales of our industries to overseas investors fly in the face of logic from a security standpoint. They do however make trade megabucks and to assume that the folks intimately involved in brokering deals like this don't get a pay-off out the back side is utterly assinine.
So, my question remains.. where did the money go? What promises and concessions were made by the administration?.. must be pretty significant to have the administration defy the overwhelming upswell of negative feedback, dontcha think?
Lastly; since they system is busted from a security standpoint the logic of defending the deal based on the 'government has already looked closely at this' comment from the president should be sending up all kinds of 'ABORT ABORT, ABORT' reactions from every government watchdog group in existence.
This thing has already become a microcosim of whats wrong with our government vetting businesses process... mayhaps it will also reveal how the 'big business of politics' has been and is continuing to sell out the vested intrests of America to foriegn intrests that have a history of screwing us in front of and behind the scenes.
-
"This admin has used fear.."
"Fear, shmear and anti-queer" has been thier M.O.
But enough about that. Did ya'll remember the '99 meeting between UAE royal family and Bin Laden?
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
Course they were their trying to sell Girl Scout cookies to all of the terrorists in the camps
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Ahh but if you own the management then you can get around those two items there. I still say keep them out of managing anything on US soil.
You do realize that there is a U.S. Navy port in Dubai.
Who do you think manages that?
-
I'd be willing to bet it ain't the Navy.
and that's not an excuse for the ports deal.. it's just symptomatic of the problem.