The Last Dubai Ports Thread

[LoungeMachine]

Just heard on Air America that minutes ago Dubai announced it would not seek control of the ports, but would instead turn over operations to a US Firm.

This means Warner can save face, and Chimpy doesn't have to get his first/only VETO overturned.......


This has been a complete SHAM all along.


Details to follow if FORD doesn't lock this up first ;)

[FORD]

Looks like Mike Malloy was right. The whole thing was Rovian manipulation from day one.

Motherfuckers :mad:

[LoungeMachine]

Wag that Dog, KKKarl

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted: March 9, 2006

Dubai blinks again on ports deal
Posted by Frank James at 1:25 pm CST

Well, the Dubai government, at least on the outside, and the Bush White House, perhaps on the inside, keep blinking.

First Dubai agreed to 45-day review of its deal to purchase control of terminal operations at numerous U.S. ports.


Now, it appears it is trying to mollify critics by placing control of its purchase into American hands. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) on the Senate floor just minutes ago said that DPW has agreed to do just this.

It seems in the standoff between Congress on one hand and Dubai Ports World and the White House on the other, Congress is winning.

President Bush had said he was so committed to the deal to the point of vetoing any legislation to thwart it. But this deal may give the White House a much-needed out.

If Dubai is giving up all control, than they may have saved the president from exercising his first veto on a deal that was so unpopular in Congress and, more importantly, with voters.

But that is still unclear at this point and won’t be until we see details of the changes.

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions, this is certain. The White House’s handling of the deal and of Congress was disastrous and may have only hastened the president’s lameduckness.

Meanwhile, Congress flexed muscles it had rarely used during the Bush presidency. The question is, will congressional Republicans repair the breach with the White House and form a cohesive anti-Democratic front after this? Or does the port dust-up represent a trend where congressional Republicans increasingly separate their agenda from the president’s?

[Warham]

Now Dubai has threatened not to do business with us at all after we gave them the heave-ho. Not too smart by Bush or Congress.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Now Dubai has threatened not to do business with us at all after we gave them the heave-ho. Not too smart by Bush or Congress.

Well fuck, if we're going to ALIENATE the entire Middle East, we may as well do it right........

Time to get the mountain bike outta the garage, Hammy.....

Iran and their 4th largest OIL reserves are next ;)

[Warham]

If any country needs to be nuked, we can start there.

[Hardrock69]

Ooooh....Dubai will not do business with us.....

Poor poor corporate fucks....

Boo fucking hoo...

cry me a motherfucking river...

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Ooooh....Dubai will not do business with us.....

Poor poor corporate fucks....

Boo fucking hoo...

cry me a motherfucking river...

:rolleyes:

Yeah, let's just alienate one of the four allies we ACTUALLY have in the Middle East.

:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, let's just alienate one of the four allies we ACTUALLY have in the Middle East.

:rolleyes:

Why is it that Pakistan (current home of Osama Bin Laden), the UAE (home of two hijackers), and Saudi Arabia (home of the rest of the hijackers) are considered "allies" in the first place?

[Warham]

Saudi Arabia really isn't an ally.

I would consider Kuwait, UAE, Pakistan and Iraq our allies.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
Saudi Arabia really isn't an ally.



Warham is right. They're more like our illicit, secret lovers.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Saudi Arabia really isn't an ally.

I would consider Kuwait, UAE, Pakistan and Iraq our allies.

Iraq an ally?

Oh yeah, if you bomb, occupy, and torture a country into submission they're automatically an ally :rolleyes:

Whether they like it or not....

So, IF they're such an "ally", why are our men and women dying over there still to this day?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Saudi Arabia really isn't an ally.

I would consider Kuwait, UAE, Pakistan and Iraq our allies.

Funny how you left out AFGHANISTAN

The forgotten War

:(

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Funny how you left out AFGHANISTAN

The forgotten War

:(

It's not forgotten at all.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not forgotten at all.


Then why didn't you list them as an ALLY???




Because you forgot.........don't lie ;)

[FORD]

Iraq is a colony, not an ally. And Afghanistan is a subsidiary of UNOCAL.

[LoungeMachine]

And the US is owned by CHINA, INC.

[Warham]

Ridiculous.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Ridiculous.


What? You not wanting to admit you FORGOT Afghanistan?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What? You not wanting to admit you FORGOT Afghanistan?

No, that we are owned by China.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
No, that we are owned by China.

China is Winning the Trade War
May 24th, 2005
The United States currently owes China over $650 BILLION in debt. That number is expected to grow to over $1 Trillion during the next 2 years.

How is this possible?

In order to pay for its two recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration has been forced to loan money from, you guessed it, China.

Meanwhile the US Economy is slipping, and small wonder why. They are currently locked into a $162 billion/year trade deficit with China. The Chinese keep manufacturing products that Americans NEED and Americans keep on buying them. The problem is that the United States isn't manufacturing much in return and sending it back to China. In fact, they're manufacturing very little these days.

The airplane industry took a huge dive ever since September 11th. So the US isn't selling very many planes to China.

The automotive industry has went sour in the United States too. The major car manufacturers have moved out of the States. The funny fact is that Canada now builds more cars/trucks/SUVs than the United States does. And in the future, China is going to be building even more than Canada, the US, and Mexico combined.

So just WHAT is driving the US economy?

War profits.

When the war in Iraq eventually ends (and it will end someday), the US economy will fall flat on its back.

The only solution will be to have another war.

Which will mean more national debt, and more loans from China. The United States is currently $7,782,816,546,352.00 in debt, and much of that debt is owed to China.

On a business level, this is very RISKY business.

Imagine for a moment, a risk board... but only instead of armies, you have banks and manufacturing companies.

These banks/companies duel it out in the markets, and whichever ones don't go bankrupt win.

Now the United States has an almost $8 trillion US debt. When push comes to shove, the United States is in serious financial trouble. They are pinned down by that debt. They are carrying it with them. Which means their banks and their companies (neither of which are doing so hot) are carrying a portion of that debt because the American people are also carrying a portion of that debt. Per person, that debt is roughly $26-27,000 US, which includes every man, woman and child, regardless of whether they are an infant or already retired.

Combine that with the debt many Americans already face from credit cards, bank loans, mortgages... if these people lose their jobs suddenly, they are going to lose EVERYTHING.

Which is what will happen when the war in Iraq ends. The war profits can only keep the United States boosted above par for a short while. Eventually the US will have to have another war in order to keep things in the green, or they will have an economic depression.

And even during an economic depression, China will continue to send the United States more toasters, more DVDs, more fine china, more cars, more everything.

And if the United States raises tarriffs on Chinese imports, the result will be an inflation rate that will knock most of the middle-class into the lower-class, and many of the lower-class onto the street.

So right now, the United States is basically SCREWED.

Anything they do, whether they continue to make war, don't make war, their economy is so far down the toilet its already in the septic tank.

So after its officially in the septic tank, then what will happen?

Well, its quite simply, the United States will basically be slaves to the new order of things: Namely, China as the central world power instead of the United States; Americans hugely in credit card and mortgage debt and basically slaves to their debts; China will end up owning all the banks and all the credit card companies.

And thats how you win a trade war. When all the banks and major companies are owned by one country. The RISK game of the 21st Century won't be played with armies anymore. It will be played by bankers, accountants and lawyers.





Business & Politics

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
No, that we are owned by China.

Simple question...

Did you forget to include Afghanistan, or do you NOT consider them an "ally"

[Warham]

I actually think they are in that gray area, like Saudi Arabia.

But yeah, I did look them over when I was listing our allies.

[LoungeMachine]

What a great non-answer.

Sometimes bro, you're the Fonzie of these forums.

Can never admit you're wro....

wron.........


wroonnnn...





WRONG.

[Warham]

I just gave you an answer, you washed-up rock star.

What the hell do you want, a signed affidavit?

[LoungeMachine]

How ANYONE could possibly consider Pakistan an ally, but not Afghanistan is beyond me......


A military dictator installed via a coup, who our own Porter Goss says is hiding Bin Laden..........


mmmkay

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I just gave you an answer, you washed-up rock star.

What the hell do you want, a signed affidavit?


LMMFAO

Just busting your balls, Hammy.


Someday you'll admit to a mistake.





someday:cool:

[Warham]

So you know where bin Laden is, but our military doesn't?

Why don't you call the White House and give them that info?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Just busting your balls, Hammy.


Someday you'll admit to a mistake.





someday:cool:

I've admitted to plenty of mistakes. Posting here every day is one of them, but habits die hard.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I actually think they are in that gray area, like Saudi Arabia.

But yeah, I did look them over when I was listing our allies.

And somehow Kuwait and Pakistan, 2 beacons of Democracy over ruled Afghanistan.........

:lol:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And somehow Kuwait and Pakistan, 2 beacons of Democracy over ruled Afghanistan.........

:lol:

We were allies with Kuwait long before we ever went into Afghanistan.

And since when do allies have to be democratic nations?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
And since when do allies have to be democratic nations?


I thought we were trying to spread Democracy in the Middle East?

Isn't that why we invaded Iraq?

Shouldn't one of the ONLY "Democracies" in the Middle East be considered an ally before Paki or Kuwait, or UAE for that matter?

Why didn't Afghanistan make your cut? No Bullpen, or lack of a good 3rd baseman?

[Warham]

No, we didn't invade Iraq to force Democracy on them. We invaded to get rid of Hussein first and foremost. Democracy was something that we hoped they might find appealing.

Why does a democracy have to take precedence over any other kind of ally? You're putting all these qualifiers into the mix where none are needed.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
So you know where bin Laden is, but our military doesn't?

Why don't you call the White House and give them that info?

Your own CIA director says he's there, but we can't go in and get him due to our good ally Pakistan is a "soveriegn nation"

Remember?

Or should I Google it for you;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
No, we didn't invade Iraq to force Democracy on them. We invaded to get rid of Hussein first and foremost.



Really?

I thought "first and foremost" were the stockpiles of WMD, and Rummy knew right where they were.......


Saddam was "in a box", and unable to do harm to his neighbors or our allies according to BOTH Powell and Rice in 2001.....

Remember?

[Warham]

No, the WMD were just part of the reason. The other reasons included breaking the cease-fire agreement, and breaking multiple UN resolutions.

I don't remember Powell saying that.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
I actually think they are in that gray area, like Saudi Arabia.

But yeah, I did look them over when I was listing our allies.

OH, SNAP!!! WARHAM JUST TOTALLY NAILED LOUNGE MACHINE WITH THAT ONE!!!

LOUNGE WAS ALL LIKE "YO, YOU FORGOT AFGHANISTAN", AND WARHAM WAS LIKE, "YO, BUT LIKE I ***DIDN'T***"!!!

JUST GOES TO PROVE...DON'T MESS WITH A REPUBLICAN!!!

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
No, the WMD were just part of the reason. The other reasons included breaking the cease-fire agreement, and breaking multiple UN resolutions.

I don't remember Powell saying that.

And oil...

(or did you forget that too?)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
OH, SNAP!!! WARHAM JUST TOTALLY NAILED LOUNGE MACHINE WITH THAT ONE!!!

LOUNGE WAS ALL LIKE "YO, YOU FORGOT AFGHANISTAN", AND WARHAM WAS LIKE, "YO, BUT LIKE I ***DIDN'T***"!!!

JUST GOES TO PROVE...DON'T MESS WITH A REPUBLICAN!!!


Who knew you were an African -American female all this time :rolleyes:

Snap?

Yo?



Not to put you on the spot, or anything ASSHOLE, but do YOU consider Afghanistan an ally?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Let's see if you can put together a cohesive answer on your own that makes any sense.....shall we?


Girlfriend:D

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

hhgtyuthju2mjnkfndkltt

so there!!! how's THAT for a coherent thought!!!

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Afghanistan would have had the potential to be ocnsidered an ally...

...but they don't have enough resources for it to be perceived to be worth this brave administrations while.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Now Dubai has threatened not to do business with us at all after we gave them the heave-ho. Not too smart by Bush or Congress.

Well, I guess their citizens will be flying airliners into our skyscrapers now!

Oh, wait...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Afghanistan would have had the potential to be ocnsidered an ally...

...but they don't have enough resources for it to be perceived to be worth this brave administrations while.

Troll douche-lapper says what????

Wow, how authoritative...

Fucking ass-hump.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Afghanistan would have had the potential to be ocnsidered an ally...

...but they don't have enough resources for it to be perceived to be worth this brave administrations while.

So why are you PMing people left and right? I mean, you're new here, right?

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So why are you PMing people left and right? I mean, you're new here, right?

Who have I PM'd? One girl???

If you have an issue to bring up with me in private, then PM me. I don;'t see what it has to do with this thread. Otherwise I do not consent to your continued harrassment.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Who have I PM'd? One girl???

Gee, you PMed one girl that hardly posts here...

Hmmm...

How innocent.


If you have an issue to bring up with me in private, then PM me. I don;'t see what it has to do with this thread. Otherwise I do not consent to your continued harrassment.

:(

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, I guess their citizens will be flying airliners into our skyscrapers now!

Oh, wait...

No, but they were going to buy 40 planes from us for around $10 billion, among other things. Not anymore.

Not too smart.

Say, how come the Chinese are running ports in our country?

[Nickdfresh]

They'll still buy our Boeings...

And I think that this issue has made it apparent that the CHINESE soon will not be controlling our ports. But the PRC has never part of it's gov't implicated in terrorist acts to some extent. The DUBAI, like Pakistan, has a renegade element in their intelligence structure that is tacitly pro-Islamic fundamentalist, and anti-West.

I mean really WAR, if we can go out and invade a country that had noting to do with 9/11 based on the scurrilous logic that they "may use WMDs on us/give WMDs to terrorists in the future" which they even didn't have; why let a nation that has some connection to al-QAIDA run our ports that already have a lot of question marks?

In fact, the ports should be Nationalized with a Federal agency created to oversee them...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham

Say, how come the Chinese are running ports in our country?

Because like I said, and you mocked......CHINA owns more of us than you know.

Were Chinese Citizens involved in 9/11?

Were The Chinese blocking us from investigating 9/11?


Apples and oranges, and you know it.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham


Say, how come the Chinese are running ports in our country?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask Poppy Bush, or his brother Prescott Jr.

http://www.usccc.org/newhome/mem-8.jpg

...or any member of the "US - China Chamber of Commerce" or the Carlyle Group, for that matter.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In fact, the ports should be Nationalized with a Federal agency created to oversee them...

The state and local governments already control the ports. It's called the Port Authority.

This was strictly a business decision to buy terminals within the ports.

I'm disappointed that racism and xenophobia played such a huge part in this decision.

[Warham]

Who Lost Dubai?
By John Tabin
Published 3/10/2006 12:09:23 AM

To appreciate fully how terribly nearly everyone involved in the ports fiasco has acquitted himself, one must start from the beginning. In October of last year, the state-run United Arab Emirates firm Dubai Ports World approached the U.S. Treasury Department about plans to purchase Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that among other things runs six major U.S. ports. Over the next few months, the deal was approved by numerous executive agencies, mainly through the Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The Departments of Energy, Transportation, and Homeland Security were all in the loop, along with the intelligence community. All okayed the deal.

The deal would allow DP World access to sensitive security information at U.S. ports. It's hardly a stretch to suggest that a UAE company might have employees who, either out of ideological sympathy or simple corruption, might pass such sensitive information on to terrorists. That risk might be outweighed by the benefits of strengthening the U.S.-UAE alliance; the Emirates have been very helpful in the war on terror. But that's a policy decision too important to be left to the bureaucrats and spooks.

It is incredible that the White House was by all appearances totally blindsided when the deal was reported by the Associated Press on February 11. President Bush was reportedly not briefed on it until February 16, by which time Chuck Schumer and other opportunists had already run for the cameras. Bush himself didn't mount a defense until February 21, one day after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed legislation to delay the deal. Bush threatened to veto any congressional move to scotch the deal -- and was roundly rebuked in the polls. The February 24 Rasmussen survey, the first to take the temperature on the ports deal, showed overwhelming opposition -- and most startlingly, a Democratic advantage on national security.

On Wednesday the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block the ports deal. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert met with Bush yesterday morning and told him that he faced veto-proof opposition to the deal on Capitol Hill, and DP World announced plans to divest operations of its U.S. ports to an American entity to be named later. Meanwhile, they're seething in Dubai, and whispering about retaliation. "[Members of the UAE royal family are] saying, 'All we've done for you guys, all our purchases, we'll stop it, we'll just yank it,'" a source told The Hill yesterday:

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.


We must hope the UAE doesn't follow through with such retaliation, particularly the bit about banishing our Navy. But it's clear that while approving the deal in the first place may have been a mistake, killing it at this stage may be even worse. Plenty of people in Washington should be ashamed.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The state and local governments already control the ports. It's called the Port Authority.

This was strictly a business decision to buy terminals within the ports.

No, they were to have been running the ports and would have managed them. The Port Authority only oversees and coordinates some functions, otherwise why would companies have to actually run them?


I'm disappointed that racism and xenophobia played such a huge part in this decision.

Yeah right.:rolleyes: This coming from an ANN COULTER fan...

[Warham]

I heard Halliburton might be interested in buying these ports.

You guys will love that.

I'm not an Ann Coulter fan, by the way. Never read her column, never watched her on the boob tube.

[Warham]

Facts after the fact on the Dubai Ports deal

After the fact of the demise of the US terminals deal – yes, I said terminals not ports; nobody was going to be controlling those ports – let’s take a look at an excerpt of the Fact Sheet that’s been posted at the Homeland Security website for a while now. Of course, arrogant, Bush-hating, manipulative, re-election obsessed congressmen & senators could not be bothered with these facts. The CPB acronym means “Customs Border Protection.”

Coast Guard: The Coast Guard routinely inspects and assesses the security of U.S. ports in accordance with the Maritime Transportation and Security Act and the Ports and Waterways Security Act. Every regulated U.S. port facility is required to establish and implement a comprehensive security plan that outlines procedures for controlling access to the facility, verifying credentials of port workers, inspecting cargo for tampering, designating security responsibilities, training, and reporting of all breaches of security or suspicious activity, among other security measures. Working closely with local port authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard regularly reviews, approves, assesses and inspects these plans and facilities to ensure compliance.

Terminal Operator: Whether a person or a corporation, the terminal operator is responsible for operating its particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator is responsible for the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. The cranes they use may be their own, or they may lease them from the port authority.

Port Authority: An entity of a local, state or national government that owns, manages and maintains the physical infrastructure of a port (seaport, airport or bus terminal) to include wharf, docks, piers, transit sheds, loading equipment and warehouses.

Ports often provide additional security for their facilities.

The role of the Port Authority is to facilitate and expand the movement of cargo through the port, provide facilities and services that are competitive, safe and commercially viable. The Port manages marine navigation and safety issues within port boundaries and develops marine-related businesses on the lands that it owns or manages.

A Layered Defense:

Screening and Inspection: CBP screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S.- using intelligence and cutting edge technologies. CBP inspects all high-risk cargo.

CSI (Container Security Initiative): Enables CBP, in working with host government Customs Services, to examine high-risk maritime containerized cargo at foreign seaports, before they are loaded on board vessels destined for the United States. In addition to the current 42 foreign ports participating in CSI, many more ports are in the planning stages. By the end of 2006, the number is expected to grow to 50 ports, covering 90% of transpacific maritime containerized cargo shipped to the U.S.

24-Hour Rule: Under this requirement, manifest information must be provided 24 hours prior to the sea container being loaded onto the vessel in the foreign port. CBP may deny the loading of high-risk cargo while the vessel is still overseas.

C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism): CBP created a public-private and international partnership with nearly 5,800 businesses (over 10,000 have applied) including most of the largest U.S. importers—the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT, CBP and partner companies are working together to improve baseline security standards for supply chain and container security. (We review the security practices of not only the company shipping the goods, but also the companies that provided them with any services.)

Use of Cutting-Edge Technology: CBP is currently utilizing large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices to screen cargo. Presently, CBP operates over 680 radiation portal monitors at our nation’s ports (including 181 radiation portal monitors at seaports), utilizes over 170 large scale non-intrusive inspection devices to examine cargo, and has issued 12,400 hand-held radiation detection devices. The President’s FY 2007 budget requests $157 million to secure next-generation detection equipment at our ports of entry. Also, over 600 canine detection teams, who are capable of identifying narcotics, bulk currency, human beings, explosives, agricultural pests, and chemical weapons are deployed at our ports of entry.

UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition

DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.

The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction. This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.

DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P&O:

o Baltimore – 2 of 14 total

o Philadelphia – 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)

o Miami – 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)

o New Orleans – 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)

o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)

o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4

o (Note: also in Norfolk – Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)

*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.

P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including:

o The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);

o The Container Security Initiative (CSI);

o The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and,

o The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy.

All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.

Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.

I’ve been working on some doggerel descriptive of the terminals deal fiasco but could only come up with the last lines:

And if congressional brains were cargo,

There’d be nothing to unload.

John B. Dwyer 3 10 06

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4605

[Angel]

Originally posted by Warham
It's not forgotten at all.

Are you sure? Do you even know who's running the show in Kandahar now?

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/02/afstan-canadian-officers-t_114115588468095379.html

Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group officially took over control of operations in Kandahar province February 24, 2006 at a ceremony at Kandahar Airfield.
The American soldiers they replaced are returning home after a year of operating in this volatile region. After weeks of handing over duties and passing on knowledge, both American and Canadian soldiers say they are confident the Patricias will further the allied goal of helping Afghans turn the province into a stable, secure environment effectively governed by Afghans.

Soldiers from the battle group... started deploying to Kandahar in mid-January. After a couple of weeks of familiarizing themselves with the environment and preparing their equipment and vehicles, they started accompanying American soldiers on patrols throughout Kandahar province.

At first, the Canadians occupied the right seat on the patrols, following the Americans' lead and learning as much as they could from the Americans' experience. Afterwards, they took the left seat and led the patrols with the Americans riding shotgun and offering tips and advice.

On Feb. 28 Brig.-Gen. David Fraser took command of

Regional Command (RC) South today in Kandahar, succeeding US Army Col. Kevin Owens. As commander of the multinational brigade led by Canada, Brig.-Gen. Fraser will be responsible for Canadian and coalition operations [including US troops] in Southern Afghanistan until November 2006...

RC South is also still under Enduring Freedom. It covers

...six provinces in the southern part of Afghanistan, which spreads over some 220,000 square kilometres.

Brig.-Gen. Fraser has

125 CF members with the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters (MNBHQ) in Kandahar. In total in the headquarters, there are 250 personnel from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States of America stationed with MNBHQ...

So far the multinational brigade does not have its UK and Dutch units and appears to be an HQ without an actual brigade. There is however a Romanian battalion of 405 soldiers in addition to the Canadian battle group.

Later this year, a British Battle Group in Helmand province and a Dutch unit in Uruzgan province will join the Canadians. These allied forces will be led by Brigadier-General David Fraser's Canadian-led Multi-National Brigade Headquarters that will take control later this spring.

These UK and Dutch units are not there now, contrary to what Canadian media reports may suggest.

The UK is however beginning to deploy troops into Helmand province, immediately west of Kandahar. I am unclear whether these forces are currently under the multinational brigade HQ.

150 Royal Marines Commandos left Britain on 14 February 2006, headed for Helmand, Afghanistan where they will provide support and protection for the UK personnel who are building a base...The Marines form part of an 850-strong advance party deploying to Afghanistan this month which will also include engineers from 39 Regiment, Royal Engineers and three CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The Marines will carry out the vital function of protecting Army and RAF personnel as they build the infrastructure critical for the follow-on deployment of 16 Air Assault Brigade in the summer.

And at some point this summer the multinational brigade will shift from Enduring Freedom to command of NATO ISAF; ISAF HQ in Kabul will be under British General Richards from May 2006 (there is a good account at this link of UK plans for Afstan by Secretary of State for Defence John Reid).

Complicated? You bet.

[Hardrock69]

Port Deal 'Pull Out' Is Phony - Dubai Will STILL Be Owner

So we are all supposed to click our heels, grin and give Bush a big ole thumbs up in the next approval poll because he tossed out a bogus bone: The Dubai Port deal "pull out."

The Bushie media are spouting this story as if Bush had "given up" and Dubai Port World had withdrawn from the deal. But look again. DPW is only turning operations over to an American holding company. They are STILL the guys "behind the curtain." This smells very much like a back room deal worked out by Bush and his pals in Dubai/UAE. Just tell let 'em think they won - meanwhile, it'll be the same company, different name on the door.

AP (A.merican P.ropaganda) and Reuters (Neo Con News) both immediately cranked out misleading stories with even more misleading headlines to aid Bush - their bilge was quickly picked up and smeared around the world.[see my expose of these two sorry excuses for news sources later this week] But fortunately, there are some publications where real news can still be found.

Here's the real story from Forbes:

"In what could be a last-ditch effort to salvage its deal to operate East and Gulf Coast ports in the U.S., DP World told Congress that it would agree to transfer control to a "U.S. entity," which could simply mean a subsidiary of the Dubai operation.

"In a statement, first read on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Virginia Republican John Warner, DP World said the decision was made to "preserve the strong relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E." But in fact, it sounded suspiciously like a device carefully crafted by DP World's huge team of lobbyists and lawyers to salvage the deal in some fashion.

"The new entity is supposed to have an American board and American managers, but the ownership was still questionable. Or, as New York's Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer observed, "the devil is in the details." If DP World is in fact merely planning to put its U.S. assets under a U.S.-managed subsidiary with oversight from a U.S.-staffed board, it would be following in a long line of foreign suppliers of defense technology to the U.S.

"This looks like a variant of that," says Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Group in Washington. "
http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/03/09/dubai-ports-divests-cx_daa-0309autofacescan12.html

Compare this to the intentionally vague and misleading AP crap:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060309-1223-portssecurity.html

Fortunately, not everyone in Congress is a clueless cluck. Rep. Peter King (NY) wasn't so quick to swallow the bait and said he would reserve any celebrations until he saw the details of the deal. And he's wise to wait - one of the warning signs was Bush brown-noser Bill Frist's too-quick observation: "This [alleged pull out of DPW]should make the issue go away."

[FORD]

Goddamn it.......

Now I'm going to have to put up another fucking sticky notice. :mad:

Actually, I've read rumors that they were transferring it to HELLiburton.

Sounds like we're ending up with terrorists controlling it one way or another.

[Hardrock69]

What is fucked up is that CHimpy is making statements like:

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."


THE STUPID COCKSUCKER DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRENGTHENING OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, AND SELLING OUT OUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY TO COUNTRIES IN LEAGUE WITH TERRORISTS!!!!

FUCK THAT WORTHLESS COCKSUCKER!!!
:mad:

Chimpy is trying to destroy our country.

He is a fucking lying, murdering traitor!

But what do you expect from a terrist in a suit?

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

I think it's time you took a valium.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Angel
Are you sure? Do you even know who's running the show in Kandahar now?

"Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group"

The Patricias, what a fearsome sounding group!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
The Patricias, what a fearsome sounding group!

You wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of their .50 cal. sniper rifles, they're quite good actually....

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of their .50 cal. sniper rifles, they're quite good actually....

No shit, I know they can fuck up shop, but the Canadians and Brits have some pussy names for their armies. :D

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
... but the Canadians and Brits have some pussy names for their armies. :D

Whoa, OD!

You finally said something that makes sense!

:wow:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Whoa, OD!

You finally said something that makes sense!

:wow:

We're building bridges here.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Goddamn it.......

Now I'm going to have to put up another fucking sticky notice. :mad:

Actually, I've read rumors that they were transferring it to HELLiburton.

Sounds like we're ending up with terrorists controlling it one way or another.

I think I warned you all to be careful what you wish for when this story first broke.
But my thoughts were that it would be Singapore or China that would end up running them.

Now, it looks like Halliburton will pay above market value to acquire control over them, so it is much worse than i had predicted, actually.

My problem with the deal was that is was done in secrecy, but the Democrats came out of the stalls to kill it, not learn about it for the sake of understanding it and Dubai stuck it to you all.

It was nothing more than political posturing, nobody was worried about security at all, just the votes. I think Harry Reid was clear on this just minutes after Dubai pulled the plug.

And the funniest part of all was how many people didn't actually know that we already had ports being run by foreign entities...bunch of opportunist fucks, all of them.

But it isn't so much that the deal failed that will come back to haunt us. it's how the deal was killed and the approach that was used that will.
But hey, it's all in a days work in grabbing for power you no longer have, right?

Bunch of fucking idiots, and you libs have the nerve to call someone else a Hitler?
Right, that makes sense, NOT!

[Cathedral]

Oh, and before someone jumps me for being a Bush Defender try an explain to me why you guys don't put as much pressure on the Border issue as you have the Ports issue?

If you all plan on standing up tall and saying to America, "Look, we are the one's that care about your security", you'd better have an answer to the Border questions, like, "When are you going to close them and start deporting illegals and fining employers who hire them?"


The open borders are far more of a threat to National Security than the ports deal would have been, idiots, so you had better bring your A-game and be willing to close the borders for real, you dig?