PDA

View Full Version : Saddam was not our enemy


skate
02-27-2006, 12:35 PM
it was the UAE.

right, now i finally got IT.

gees

Ron
02-27-2006, 03:44 PM
it was the UAE.

right, now i finally got IT.

gees

Not sure what this means. Are you saying we should let a UAE company operate US ports?

highnote
02-27-2006, 05:32 PM
No. He means Saddam should be set free and allowed to run our ports. :D

skate
02-27-2006, 05:51 PM
run the ports?

operate?
run the ports?
operate?
run the ports?

now here i am getting confused, again.

who the... said anything "bout running the ports "?

hey, some thought, seems like, with the media putting any word they like into any situation (with out any conviction), that it could be a benifit to fill out an application with such. just do it.

something tells me, that you understand each other, and that is just fine, but think for a minute about what this does for me .
hey, a little simpathy, goes a long way.

thanks
skate

skate
02-27-2006, 05:56 PM
now take the baby by the hand and explain. be nice skate. oh ok.

nobody, ever ever ever, said UAE would be running any ports.

and that includes "all". nobody ever said that UAE would be running any ports.

hey, i just had a few minutes of spare time to vent, thanks

love
skate

highnote
02-27-2006, 06:02 PM
I knew exactly what you were saying in your first message. You were being facetious. I was "attempting" to be facetious, too. A double-entendre of facetiousness. :D

Secretariat
02-27-2006, 06:06 PM
Skate,

The phrase the media uses is "manage" the ports. Originally, it was six, and then later expanded to 21 ports.

Originally the Coast Guard didn't make a big statement on it, but in a recent declassified document released by Senator Collins:

"WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

...

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security."

None of this has anything to do with Saddam Hussein.

skate
03-01-2006, 05:42 PM
ok ok , swetyjohn;

thanks for that "facetiousnessly-double-entendre.

i was sinking fastly.

hey SECretariat;

i guess what i was amused with was the thought of having all those people trying to explain "how Saddamy was really our friend". remember?

and now when it comes to somebody like (UAE) people, who we are selling the up graded F-16s and training them in Az. been doing that for ten years or so, the same people who fly over the USA (passenger aircraft), the same people that own the property where we dock our vessels, NOW we gotta tell them to get lost.
just when we are being told by the media, "we need to establish More friendly relations outside of the USA", it just gets me rolling over with LOL.

on top of all that, as far as i can tell, it would not mater who buys the options being sold (P&O).
those options do not include "running or operating the Ports" ?

if a problem appears with the cargo, it would stem from the port of departure and have Nothing to do with the port to which it is delivered.
unless, of coarse, they pirate the ship corsair.

thanks
skate

skate
03-03-2006, 04:06 PM
Secretariat;


regards to your post;

Collins , i believe was talking about quite a while back, months i believe.

i can see that the name "manage, run ,or operate" might be wrongly used, in my opinion. do to the overal control, or security laws that are in use.

i don't see a "management of the ports" to any extent and i'd relate the scenario of a girl delivering bread to a super market with "having the rights to operate IN a port", in neither case would i assume that the girl or UAE, have the right to manage.

a gripe i see, is that the media uses words and the public picks up on these words, then Bingo, the whole story turns.

thanks for the chance
skate

Suff
03-03-2006, 04:16 PM
Both sides are subject to misnomers when reporting.


However many facts are undeniable.

The company receives a highly classified "Port Vulnerability Study" as a function of being awarded the contract.

That report explains in detail where are ports are Vulnerable.

That raises viable concerns. imho


I heard today that Dubia Ports international bought 2.5% of Time-Warner stock a month before the deal. They own many media outlets....CNN among them. There is pressure for Lou Dobbs to stop reporting on the deal. Dobbs said it himself this week.

The same DUBAI GOVT. owners bought the Building over Grand Central Station on November of 2005.

I'm watching the matter with an open mind.

Suff
03-03-2006, 04:25 PM
Speaking of the Press.


When Muslims went bonkers over a few cartoons it was everywhere... People dying, places burning.

That fueled the war on terror for another week.

Now I hear that 100's of thousands of Hindu's are protesting Bush in India and I can't find a decent story, never mind a picture.

skate
03-05-2006, 06:00 PM
ok ok Suff;

hey i agree with bout everything you stated.

also, Dubei is "as good as it will get". might not be bad either.

central data base pushed the boarders "out", now we inspect overseas.
i'm thinking.UAE was the first, at least thats what i here.

terminal operations get checked by security.

we need some help, unless we go bombs away, from the other side.

seems simple to me, not much choice, but the media would like to over dramatize everything at all times.

ya , sure, we could go off and hide, but...

skate
03-05-2006, 06:13 PM
hey, heres a point, only i know it is true.


and here's why i can not get worked up over anything, i see or read in "the press".

i did read, 1980 transportation bill, (anyone can get the Bills thru your congressman), anyhow, in that bill it stated that Saudia Arabia was able to purchase "whatever"(my word) in the USA and they did not have to have their name attached.
maybe overturned by now, but guess what...

where are the presses, when i need them? ya, back then it wasn't a story (cept to ME).


its humpback mountain time
skate