 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Army_(Ret)
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 108
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Although Andrew McCarthy has some good points there; I hardly believe it would be fair to deny a company a sale, soley based on what that company's home governments situation is.
Although 8 billion sounds like a lot, they are only buying 9 terminals in 6 ports.
Also, I find it difficult to believe that it is any kind of a security issue, since our former Vice-President was just in Saudi Arabia 2 weeks ago saying we were rounding up Arabs, and we were holding them without charges, and without lawyers for indeterminate periods of time, and he was ginning up all this hate for the United States on the basis of the way we treat Arabs.
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
In reviewing this thread quickly, I note that 2 small things have apparently been overlooked.
1) UAE was one of only 3 countries in the world to offically recognize the Taliban gov of Afghanistan.
2) home to Aljazeera |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uisguex Jack
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh I beg to differ, I mentioned the beloved al jazeera..... maybe a bit too much.
I maintain my oposition to the deal entirely, that is unless this is all just one giant 'sting' operation being run by the Longshoremans and the Spooks.
Better than complaints about 'guantanimo', I'd be pleased to hear not a peep from a few dozen cargo containers quartering the best of the best al queda's got to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Er, I believe Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, sort of next door to CentCom. An uncomfortable neighborly arrangement, to be sure.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
becca1223
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Colonial Heights, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Posted 9/2/2004 2:02 PM
Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.
The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.
Once here, it's easy to blend in to what has become a cosmopolitan crowd.
The Emirates is home to an estimated 4 million people, and nearly 75% of them are foreigners. In Dubai, expatriates of all nationalities are catered to, from concerts by top Western musicians to cricket and rugby matches to a German-styled Oktoberfest.
The expatriates, mostly from the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world, are employed in the real estate, insurance, tourism and banking sectors. Westerners, numbering in the tens of thousands, are employed as military advisers and oil specialists.
While the Emirates has taken concrete steps to fight terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001 — including making high-profile arrests, passing an anti-money laundering law, and imposing close monitoring procedures on charity organizations — the characteristics that make it an ideal place for legitimate business also attract militants and others with suspect motives.
In August, Pakistani Qari Saifullah Akhtar, suspected of training thousands of al-Qaeda fighters for combat, was arrested in the Emirates and turned over to officials in his homeland, authorities in Pakistan announced.
Emirates authorities have refused to comment on Akhtar's arrest. They were similarly tightlipped in 2002, when the United States announced the arrest of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.
It was a month before Emirates officials confirmed al-Nashiri had been arrested here. Then they said he had been planning to attack "vital economic targets" in the Emirates that were likely to inflict "the highest possible casualties among nationals and foreigners."
The Saudi-born al-Nashiri, one of six Cole defendants in an ongoing trial in Yemen, is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed location. Besides the Cole attack, he is suspected of helping direct the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. officials say.
With open borders, multiethnic society and freewheeling business rules, the Emirates remains vital to al-Qaeda operations, said Evan F. Kohlmann, a Washington-based terrorism researcher.
Dubai still "plays a key role for al-Qaeda as a through-point and a money transfer location," Kohlmann said, although he also noted the country could be working to combat such activity with "an aggressive but low-profile intelligence strategy."
al-Qaeda isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror.
Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups, said trumpeting developments such as the arrest of al-Qaeda suspects could be misread as serving the United States when the Emirates, led by its President Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, cultivates an image as a champion of Arab causes. The Emirates nonetheless has a close relationship with Washington.
Rashwan said the reticence also could stem from fear that saying too much could cause "panic among the huge expatriate community, which is proportionally the largest in the Gulf."
Kohlmann said if more al-Qaeda suspects are arrested in the Emirates, the network might retaliate with a strike here, perhaps on a U.S. mission or military target.
While the country has not been singled out as a target by al-Qaeda, the United States issued a warning in June that it had "information that extremists may be planning to carry out attacks against Westerners and oil workers in the Persian Gulf region, beyond Saudi Arabia."
Security is tight in the Emirates, but not visible, and violent crimes are uncommon.
"The United Arab Emirates is considered a safe haven for everybody," said Emirates analyst Abdulkhaleq Abdulla. "It has not yet got entangled in any of the violence that other countries around it have experienced and it wants to keep that image."
Shortly after the Sept. 11, attacks, U.S. authorities said the United Arab Emirates, especially the commercial hub Dubai, was a major transit and money transfer center for al-Qaeda.
A new report dated Aug. 21 by the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks provided the most detail yet on the extent to which the hijackers used Dubai as a travel hub.
According to the U.S. government, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States between April 23 and June 29, 2001. And 11 of those late-arrivers — who were Saudi citizens and primarily the "muscle" for the hijackings — went through Dubai, according to the report.
The hijackers traveled in groups of two or three, taking off from Dubai and arriving at airports in Miami, Orlando, or New York City, the report said.
As for the money trail, Bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received at a Dubai bank a transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the Emirates for Pakistan, where he was arrested last year.
Marwan Al-Shehhi, an Emirates citizen and one of the hijackers, received $100,000 via the United Arab Emirates. Another hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.
About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaeda terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. al-Qaeda money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow!!! Just think of the fuss if it was found that the 9-11 hijackers had taken flying lessons in the UAE or had been issued UAE drivers' licenses and had travelled freely about the UAE, flying on UAE airlines dry running their scheme.
Come on folks. Time for a reality check. There are probably no more than a dozen UAE citizens who have anything to do with Dubai Port's World and those few would be senior royal family members who approve or disapprove investment ideas brought to them by their foreign (mostly western) financial advisors. If DPW was put together like most everything else the UAE owns, it is the result of purchasing already existing companies, managed by international (again mostly western) managers and Emiraty in name only. The only concern the UAE officials have is whether or not the enterprise makes money and enhances UAEs reputation as global free market player.
As for support for the Palestinians and the Taliban.......USAID has poured hundreds of millions into the West Bank without regard to whether anyone associated with Hamas was involved. The mujahideen (Taliban) were our major weapon against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Major planning for 9-11 took place in Germany. Are all Germans now suspect?
This world is getting smaller and more complex as information and transportation technologies blur traditional borders and reconfigure who is dependant on whom. There are no doubt mortal enemies of the US in the UAE (most likely not UAE citizens) but there are also mortal enemies of the US in Peoria. Our President and his team have done and are doing a great job of making the transition from pre 9-11 to meet the realities of today. The port kerfuffle has educated us to the fact that we now have customs agents in ports all over the world (and yes at DPW facilities) inspecting US bound cargoes before they are even loaded. (Last summer I went through US immigration and customs at a European airport before even boarding. They had an eight hour heads up as to whether they should let me in to the US when I landed.)
Our President's promise to do everything possible to protect the US have thus far prevented any attack. His efforts are not perfect or iron clad but the results are worthy of note when he says "I have no security concerns with DPW". Does that mean DPW will never be associated with a future attack. No. But can anyone say that about American Airlines?
As we pass the 6 month mark from Katrina consider this. Recall how disoriented the country felt in the days and weeks following. Anyone who wanted to really take advantage and damage our economy and pshycy would have seen that as the ideal time to attack but we had not so much as a stink bomb on a bus. And that is not because they did not recognize the impact they could have had or simply felt sorry for us.
P.S. Al Jazeera is based in Doha, Qatar so that is just another red herring in this port issue.
Last edited by homesteader on Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for missing that, I scanned too quickly.
They have Aljazeera, we have the NYT 
But, if you want more, the 9/11 commission report is FULL of stuff about UAE. Just do a search for UAE on the PDF.
Here's a few choice ones: (After Clinton balks at taking out Osama with a rocket because some royal from UAE was with him at the time at his camp in Afghanistan, R. Clarke makes an unauthorized phone call to the UAE to discuss it...and a week later Osama's camp is completely dismantled).
Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area,CIA officers hoped he might return,seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7,1999,Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled,and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt,were irate.“Mike”thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.
footnote: as the United States considered striking the camp,Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan.NSC email,Clarke to Kerrick,UBL update,Feb.10,1999.Subsequent reporting,however,suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp.
________________________________
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001,the United States,and President Clinton personally,pressed the UAE,one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. (165.Kattouf was the U.S.ambassador to the UAE from 1999 to 2001. He indicated that high-level UAE officials would agree to restrict Afghan flights but told him that the government had a difficult time enforcing this.)
These efforts achieved little before 9/11. In July 1999,UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin. The Taliban did not take him seriously,however.Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers”in the region,but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.
_________________________
Some further little tidbits hidden in the footnotes at the end of the 9/11 commission report:
as the United States considered striking the camp,Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan.NSC email,Clarke to Kerrick,UBL update,Feb.10,1999.Subsequent reporting,however,suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp.
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267,Oct.15,1999.UNSCR 1267 demanded that the Taliban render Bin Ladin to justice within 30 days;upon noncompliance,UN member states were called on to restrict takeoff and landing rights of Taliban-owned aircraft.The sanctions also required member states to freeze Taliban funds and financial resources.But Taliban “charter flights”continued to fly between Afghanistan and the UAE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, the UAE is mentioned quite often in the 9/11 commission report.
The "gov" of UAE included. Specifically, as a conduit (because they allowed illegal flights from AFghanistan, etc) , banking/funding, etc.
The UAE defied the UN ban on flights/money, etc in and out of AFghanistan..and dealings with the Taliban. That's "why" they were logistically important, not just for 9/11, but for illegal arms sales, AQ Khan, etc..etc. That's not to mention R. Clarke letting it slip to a UAE high level gov offical that we were watching the camp in AFghanistan, the UAEs offical denials, then the camp being vacated a week later in a hurry.
While your points about individual students in Germany are well taken, these issues I've mentioned were problems we've had with the UAE "gov" (not indivudals). And it's not like they didn't "know" about these issues because "we" were complaining about it for many years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
becca1223
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Colonial Heights, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Published: March 1 2006 23:50 | Last updated: March 1 2006 23:50
Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.
It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman.
On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress.
However, Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governments”.
Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.”
He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.
Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai.
The backlash against Dubai’s takeover has seen some lawmakers in Washington highlight the UAE’s alleged role in helping to finance September 11.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html |
link h/t: DrudgeReport |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
becca1223
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Colonial Heights, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Dubai Reaffirms Policy of Refusing Entry to Israelis
19:05 Mar 01, '06 / 1 Adar 5766
By Michael Freund, INN International Affairs Correspondent
Despite heavy criticism in Washington over its continued enforcement of the anti-Israel Arab boycott, the Government of Dubai has reiterated its refusal to allow Israeli citizens to enter Dubai.
“We don’t give a permit for Israeli passport holders to enter the country,” Mohammed Ali al-Mohari of the Entry Permits Section of Dubai’s Interior Ministry said in a telephone interview. “It’s a rule.”
Asked to explain the reason behind the policy, Al-Mohari laughed and said that he thinks this is the case for most Arab countries. “This is how it is in most of the Arabic lands, I am sure,” he said.
He added, though, that the holder of a foreign passport bearing stamps which indicated that he or she had once visited the Jewish state would not encounter any problems entering the country.
Dubai’s refusal to allow Israelis to set foot on its soil also features prominently on a government-run website belonging to the Gulf Arab nation.
On the website of the Dubai Government’s Department of Tourism & Commerce Marketing, under the section titled “Visa Regulations” it states that, “Nationals of ‘Israel’ may not enter the U.A.E.”, a reference to the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a constituent state.
The reaffirmation of Dubai’s policy of barring entry to Israelis came just one day after Democratic and Republican legislators in Washington blasted the country’s ongoing participation in the Arab boycott of the Jewish state.
Dubai’s continued enforcement of the anti-Israel trade ban was first revealed in a report in Monday’s Jerusalem Post.
Republican Senator Ted Stevens and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer both lambasted Dubai for its policy on Israel, as did former presidential nominee Senator John Kerry, who said, “This boycott not only violates at least the spirit of U.S. law, it is inconsistent with everything we believe in as Americans.”
They spoke at a hearing of the US Senate Commerce Committee, which convened Monday to discuss US President George W. Bush’s controversial plan to sell 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the Government of Dubai.
At the hearing, Edward H. Bilkey, the chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, was grilled by Senators after confirming that his firm’s parent holding company does enforce the Arab boycott. He insisted, however, that this would not have any impact on the administration of American ports were the proposed acquisition to be completed.
In response, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement calling on the Bush Administration to drop the ports deal.
“That Dubai Ports World is owned by the emirate of Dubai, which actively supports the Arab economic boycott of Israel, should be grounds enough to torpedo any deal with the United States on port operations,” said ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman. “Dubai should not benefit from America’s open trade policies unless it discontinues its anti-Israel activity.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=99471 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. The government of the UAE IS individuals. It is the royal family. Below them is a bureaucracy of hired foreign help. There is no "Arab Street" in the UAE. There is the royal family and extended clan and all the expats imported to do all the work. If there are demonstrations in the UAE against the US or cartoons etc., it would be Muslims, primarily from the Asian subcontinent or East Africa, doing it and the royal family is not going to countinence anything beyond symbolic displays of outrage.
2. The boycott issue is not new. I grew up in a Middle East with no Coka Cola or Fords. Over the years the boycott has been diluted as the global economy makes it harder to trace products etc. Still, one of the most ardent supporters of the boycott in word if not in actuality is Saudi Arabia. If principle is important all of the sudden do we now refuse to buy Saudi oil and tell Prince Waleed he has to sell his majority positions in numerous American enterprises? Israeli's, or anyone with an Israeli stamp in his passport, can not travel in numerous countries through out the Middle East but a lot fewer than it used to be. The tide of change is slow but it is moving. Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Oman and even Yemen have come a long way in the past decade. Desert Storm would have been a much greater challenge without them and now they a truely vital to our interests. Our dealing with Iraq and possibly Iran from naval and air bases in the region makes the boycott a non issue to the Israelis.
There seems to be a mad scramble to cram unrelated bits of information into the shape of evidence to justify positions against this deal. Case in point....Al Jazeera belongs to the UAE so our port security is threatened. Not only does Al Jazeera not belong to the UAE, Al Jazeera has nothing to do with the procedures of our Coast Guard and Customs or the respective Port Authorities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
homesteader,
You are right, that aljazeera would have nothing to do with this port deal or any logistics related to it. (even if it was "based" in UAE).
But, what the royal family, or government officals, have done and their history in working with us "is" very much relevant to this ...given they are ones who will own this company. From there, the issue would be the logistics of the deal and what kind of role the UAE is going to play in this. And while we've had some assurances from the WH that it's "ok", we don't really know just what those details are....which is one reason why some people are concerned and why it's been forced into a deeper review.
Trust is something you develop over time. I'm not opposed to them owning or having investment intrests in regards to the US. But, the specific concern in this specific deal is related to our "port operations" inside the US. Not buying oil. Not investment in some private firm or real estate portfolio investments.
I think here, the burden is on our gov..to explain this deal in terms of alleviating and addressing what they wrongly thought would not be a concern but just routine. And "that" hasn't been handled yet in a way that builds any trust or confidence. Particularly that's true here in a mid-term election year mired in politics and partisan attacks that tend to fog the issues. And I apolgise for wrongly mentioning aljazeera in this discussion. Yes, we've been doing "business" with the Saudis.....for "decades". Is the SA the UAE? Are they in line for this deal? Is it your argument that we "don't" have concerns with our arrangment with SA? Or is this too a red herring argument as to why we should "not" be concerned with "this" particular deal invovling "this" particular royal family and the way it has been handled thus far?
I think all of these issues are a concern that should be looked at closely.
It just means you took the time to scrutinize it in the context of what those issues are with that particular deal understanding what people's concerns might be post 9/11 and addressing them in a clear way. Part of this concern arises from the fact that this was handled as "routine", internal review. That may have been throughly vetted and looked at. But, the information coming out surrounding this suggests it was not. There are signs all over the place that this was handled in a very routine way and it's very obvious that the WH had aboslutely no clue that this would be a hot potato issue with the public at large and a HUGE political issue that they just handed the DNC on silver platter. They were blindsided by this. Does that indicate to you that they were on top of this? And I have to say, recent events like Katrina don't help this issue any.
People are a lot more wary...about how such things are vetted...given the issues we've seen with the information flow in Washington and problems even within the WH. It's not about not trusting Bush. I do. The question would be more aligned with given the problems with information flow in the WH and cogs in the wheel that have delegated authority...does Bush even know all the details of this? I'm quite sure he does "now" given the rising stink over it. And I'd bet you money that there have been some changes made to that deal already because of it. Things that should have caught "somebodies" eye to begin with. It's not a great confidence builder in this deal as a whole.
It's not like the saudi's buy up a hotel in NYC, redecorate it with throw pillows and tents and all the staff changes. And I'm quite sure that in this case If I look out my office window at the port in NYC, nothing would appear any different. Same people, doing the same job, etc. The mistake here is in thinking that because of that...nobody would have concerns about it and it could be handled in a routine way. That, obviously, blew up in their face (no pun intended). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's quite interesting who has now come out in support of the deal.
| Quote: | Israeli shipper endorses DB World
House Armed Services chief says he's out to 'kill' ports deal
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Posted: 8:44 p.m. EST (01:44 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of Israel's largest shipping firm has strongly backed a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based shipping company control of several U.S. port terminals, while another GOP leader expressed strong opposition. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/port.security/index.html
| Quote: | Dubai Ports World Works With Israeli Firms
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, March 3, 2006
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Dubai's government may formally subscribe to the Arab boycott of Israel, but a state-owned company at the center of a controversy over its bid to take over some U.S. port operations says it routinely works with Israeli firms.
It's a contradiction increasingly apparent in the region: Several Persian Gulf states, especially ones entering international markets, mostly ignore the boycott even though they haven't formally ended it and don't recognize Israel.
Countries like the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, have also ended secondary boycotts, meaning Israeli products not shipped directly from Israel are allowed to enter their markets. |
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/2/165954.shtml?s=lh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I’ve never had to reference a Canadian news report before, but this story just doesn’t seem to be reported by our MSM.
Here’s a new twist to port security!!
| Quote: | Port Security, China
Sandy Berger & son of China President linked to Port Security International
By Judi McLeod
Monday, February 27, 2006
Forget Dubai-based DP World poised to run commercial operations in six leading American ports, it’s the players in the chess game called Port Security that Congress members should be losing the most sleep over.
While it’s true that port security falls under the jurisdiction of Coast Guard and U.S. customs officials, agents of both entities will need a program just to recognize all the players.
Port Security International (PSI) is an international partner’s network composed of an array of financial, strategic, technological and in-country port industry related companies.
PSI has an alliance with the China-based Nuctech, a company that “possesses the largest manufacture base of Linear Accelerator X-ray inspection machines to inspect containers at ports in the world.” (www.secureports.com/partner.htm).
Boasts PSI of partner Nuctech: “As a result of its valuable contribution in the security inspection application, Nuctech has earned its indisputable reputation within the cargo inspection industry.”
Chief Executive Officer of the 700-employee strong Nuctech is Hu Haifeng. That’s Hu Haifeng, the son of current China President Hu Jintao. It should surprise no one that Hu Haifeng is landing lucrative contracts in China.
At a 2005 meeting on port security in Dubai, Nuctech said that they hope to expand their foothold in the mid-east. (www.ameinfo.com/58032.html).
Airport, Port & Terminal Security 2006 will be held from April 3-4 at the Grand Hyatt Dubai.
“PSI has a strategic alliance with Stonebridge International LLC, a global business strategy firm based in Washington, DC that helps U.S. and multinational companies shape and execute strategies to solve problems and seize business opportunities worldwide.” (Security Ports International 2004).
Disgraced Sandy “The Burgler” Berger heads up Stonebridge International.
Congress members will better know Berger than Hu Haifeng.
Berger, who served as National Security Adviser to former President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001, was under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breur said that he knowingly removed handwritten notes by stuffing them in his jacket, pants and socks and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
FBI agents searched Berger’s home and office after the former Clinton adviser volunteered to return some sensitive documents to the National Archives.
When news of the investigation surfaced, Berger quit as an informal adviser to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
“Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction,” Kerry said. “I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to this campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly.”
In April of 2005, Berger, who served no prison time, was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $50,000.
In a later reincarnation, Berger signed on as an adviser to the hit ABC TV show, Commander in Chief, where he joined fellow Clintonistas Capricia Marshall and Steve Cohon, (NewMax.com, Oct. 2005).
Hu Jintao, President of the Communist Peoples’ Republic of China tramples human rights and rules a country in which dissenters caught posting anti-government criticisms on the Internet, are thrown into prison.
In the brewing storm, it’s been all but forgotten that the United Arab Emirates was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports.
Congressional concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to 9/11 hijackers isn’t waning even though DP only moved into headlines through its acquisition of the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O).
For anyone still watching their players’ program, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off the $6.8-billion sale of the English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World, was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its international port operations to DP World for $1., 15-billion in 2004–one year after Snow joined the cabinet of President Bush.
The international port chess game to date includes a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers poised to take over the commercial operation of six leading American ports. That’s not to mention a conglomerate in the port security business like PSI with ties to Sandy Berger and the son of the president of the People’s Republic to China.
Shouldn’t someone on either side of the House be asking President George W. Bush, “Who’s on first?” |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Little did I know when I explained that the UAE hires everything done that it was Clinton and his crew that have been hired to advise and run their investments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
