George Bush to sell major seaports to Mid-east based firm

[BigVrunga]

WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html

 

[lifter2005]

Whats the problem?

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

 

[BigVrunga]

Whats the problem?

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

Well with the government handling security, I guess everything would be fine then. Nothing slips by them!

BV

 

[DaWarw]

Whats the problem?

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

Say we go to war against the majority of Islamic states. Who do you think Dubai is going to side with?

Also, whose to say Dubai doesn't stock pile weapons in the name of Allah. Now I'm not talking about WMDs but AK's, RPGs, grenades, and explosives to make IEDs.

 

[lifter2005]

Well with the government handling security, I guess everything would be fine then. Nothing slips by them!

BV

Well the US was handling security before the sale, and they will handle security after the sale. The only that will change will be ownership from British to UAE.

EDIT:
Also, we havent been attacked since Septmber 2001. They must be doing something right.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

i can not believe that bush doesnt see how much of an issue this really is.....i can not see how ANYONE cant see it!!!!

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reporters

BECAUSE THE BRITISH ARE NOT PART OF THE UAE WHO WERE PART OF THE 911 ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats why mr. president. what is there NOT
to understand!!!!!

i can see it now.....5 years later....

breach of security!!!!

-People: where are they coming from?

-bush: the ports that the us sold to an arab country

-people: how did this happen??

-bush: i dont know.....i never expected this! never in my wildest dreams!



you would think that out of all of the so called "advisors" that someone SOMEONE would have been like " i dont think this is a very good idea"

:frustrate

 

[Squeaks4ver]

who cares. we will wire tap them anyway lol

 

[BigVrunga]

Also, we havent been attacked since Septmber 2001. They must be doing something right.

You do have a point there.

Still though, its not a good idea. We're at war with an arab state. Im sorry, but all it would take would be for someone high up in that shipping company to feel a little pro-fundamentalist and bad things could happen. Even if the US is handling security, putting someone who could possibly have ties with the enemy at your doorstep could be a bad idea.

Unless he's going for the 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer' approach.

BV

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

Also, we havent been attacked since Septmber 2001. They must be doing something right.

yes, but we didnt give the uae control of some of our ports.....why not let them control our airports too while they are at it and see how long it will be for another attack....

 

[bioman]

Word is we are selling the ports to them in exchange for a greater share of UAE oil. Business-wise, it is a good deal. Security-wise it makes me a little edgey even if we retain 100% control over all security. Politically...wow, great way to raise the ire of nearly everyone.

 

[maosman]

I see that most people are concerned about the UAE purchasing the ports because it has the word arab in it. The UAE is possibly the most progressive arab nation in the world. Most of the workers that they employ are froigners. My father who has worked in the petrochemical industry for most of his life has been there. It is kind of like going to vegas except you have guys wearing white dresses. Also I don't think there is a major US company that has submited a good bid for the operation of the ports.

We in the US are trying to get a good deal on oil right now because I believe we are going after Iran. I have read an artical in fortune magazine that says we are going to be rebuilding our relationships with africa inorder to buy oil from them (many of the african states are not part of OPEC and sell oil at a reduced cost. Sudan sells theirs at 2$ per barrel less). As Iraq is getting more and more control back not many troops are coming back home. Why because Iran is only a short tank ride away.

As far as my political standing incase it makes a difference to anyone. I am a democrat and I did not vote for Bush. However I see no problem with this deal. Two terrorists were from that country during 9/11. So if that math formula is what we use to choose which country gets to buy the ports that rules out the USA because we had Tim McVeigh (sorry for the miss spelled name) and his buddy whose name escapes me now as I type this.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Whats the problem?

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

Customs only checks a small percentage of packages.

And, not to mention, if you think that having management over port operations does not give them a little bit of power over what goes into and out of the ports, you're out of your mind.

The UAE was often a financial medium for Al Qaeda in preparation for 9/11...not very reassuring IMO.

 

[SoccerGuy07]

heh...within 5 years, it wont matter. 5 years from now the world will be at war again, especially if Iran's current president or whatever he is is allowed to stay in office. think about it. this port thing is a big deal...but not as big as having that jackass in office in Iran.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Yeah, we've got lots of problems right now....but I guess that's consistent with human history, eh? :sad:

 

[maosman]

very true soccerguy. The situation over at Iran is too hairy. I personally think that the Iranian people trully screwed themselves in the 70's by getting rid of their Shah. No more mini skirts for them.

I think I just figured out why that region is full of anger. With all the women covered up from head to toe and everyone has lots and lots of pent up sexual energy they have not found a good way to release it.

On a more serious note. I don't know if we can carry on a two front war. Europe didn't show much excitement about helping out with Iraq. They have a sprinkle of a few soldiers here and a few there. We would need more troops and more money.

 

[bioman]

The EU may lend more of a hand in Iran as it is abundantly clear that Iran can and will destabilize the entire region and really mess up oil exports. The religious zealotry found in Iran's leadership has broader implications for the region than Saddam ever could have had. Saddam had no allies in the region to speak of. Iran, and Islamic fundamentalism has far more sympathy across the region and this could lead to civil wars, more attacks on Israel and the west.

Add to that the very real threat of nuclear proliferation in the increasingly unstable region, and the EU and UN will certainly have a more vested interest in both diplomacy and potential pre-emptivism.

I for one, hope it does not go that route but I would stand behind the taking down of Iran's leadership 110% more than I did with Iraq's.

 

[Squeaks4ver]

this is an uncomfortable move, but in the end we are playing a good game of chess. We will get a better backing to help Iraq grow, to redirect Iran's quest for "power" and a better price on oil. The people that have a big problem with it hold a lot of stock in oil and their earnings will crash

 

[CDB]

What this all comes down to is whoever in the Bush administration thought this was going to be a nonissue is a fucking moron. There may indeed be no problem with letting the UAE own the company, but as someone else said it will give them some power in the ports by default. And the UAE doesn't need to be a fundamentalist organization. All they need is to have a few fundamentalists working in the comany who want to kill us in positions of power. It just seems like a stupid idea in the end.

Also, as far as the lack of attacks since 9/11, that doesn't prove any success on the part of security. When was the last attack on American soil before 9/11? These fuckers work slow.

 

[SubliminalX]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_53;_ylt=AjH64wYkoM9_gvPlWPFdi6UTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Seems like the White House and UAE/Arab Co. had negotiated this under the table such that the Dept. of Homeland security has direct access to any and all material needed for investigations. All the current port managers are Americans, and apparently it's going to stay that way. Ownership changes, but that's really it.

The hawks are playing both sides. Maintain strong ties with Arab allies, and maybe thay give us the dirt on people/activities we're looking for.

 

[RenegadeRows]

I think the big thing was, X amount of hijackers on September 11th came from UAE. Money funded for the 9/11 attacks were supposedly financed through banks in the UAE.

The United States has spent considerable time, money, effort, and lives into creating, or at least trying to create, democratic states in the Middle East. I think we will start seeing the more "secure" Arab states gaining more position and power on the world stage in the next 50 years. Otherwise, our efforts to modernize their countries would be viewed as quazi imperialistic. Remember, we are there to help THEM.

I think there was more to it though then is on the news. I'm sure we're getting something in return

 

[dennis25271]

Selling ports hell the bushes are selling national forest land in 5000 acre chunks here in the east, we will not have anything left when he gets out of office:wtf:

 

[MaynardMeek]

We never owned the ports.. England did, this move has been approved and inspected by every aspect of government needed.

with that said.. americans should control our water ways and ports... fine, we get to use the same crappy security rules ( rules mind you the people are good) and yes gas prices should drop by a good chunk.. but is it worth it.. or is america too "racist" this would be like saying.. we dont want jews running our diamond trade because they screw us.. to not allow any buisness that wishes to buy in to the american system would not be american... to not allow a buisness to buy in because of their religion.. would be just as bad as the nazis....

i do like that this is going on however... one day the United States Government is looked at as this force to take over the world.. the next day, we are allowing the same area of people that has been proven to cause us great troubles to buy in to our ports.... My friend from germany said it best. "Either your president is bipolar, or he actually sees hope and cares about the middle east improving"

 

[MaynardMeek]

you uhmm you cant do that.. free speech isn't free when it comes to harming people.. moreso the president... but i am sure i understand your anger in this sale by the british to the UAE

 

[CDB]

this would be like saying.. we dont want jews running out diamond trade because they screw us..

:rofl:

I have got to show this to a Jewish friend of mine. He's gonna piss himself laughing. Thanks man. I've actually been looking for a way to cheer him up lately.

 

[chauncy]

Say we go to war against the majority of Islamic states. Who do you think Dubai is going to side with?

Also, whose to say Dubai doesn't stock pile weapons in the name of Allah. Now I'm not talking about WMDs but AK's, RPGs, grenades, and explosives to make IEDs.

Thats a good question considering that the very company has an anti-israeli policy. Any goods or personal that at all related to israel are not allowed on the premises. So I wonder if a scenario like you said above played out, which side they would be on. Both most likely.

 

[derbyman05]

Bush is dumb

 

[MasterMind]

:clap2: