Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Dubai World Ports Controversy

Discussion in 'News' started by H. Lecter, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. H. Lecter

    H. Lecter Senior Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2004 Messages: 1,844 Likes Received: 4
    Quote from a writer in the Khaleej Times , One of Dubai's top newspapers..

    "Ironically, the US should subcontract its own airport security to Dubai.  After all, more US naval ships call on Jebel Ali than any other port in the world and DXB is one of the safest, fastest growing and hippest airports on the planet. Not exactly shabby mafia-infested joints like JFK or  La Guardia as I remember them.
    ..We need to heal the wounds of civilisation inflicted  by the 9/11 terrorists, not inflame them.."


    ---

    This quote adquately reflects my point..

    I think this uproar reflects the ugly and ignorant anti-arab setiment in the US and sends a horrible message
    to the arab world , most significantly to our allies in the Mid-East..
    Without thier help and support, the US would not be able to carry out any of its operations,
    economic or military ; in the region..


    The fact is that P&O is/was a foriegn based company,
    so thiers little to no credibility in the arguement that there should be no foreign operation of our ports..
    Furthermore, 95% of products and people coming through US commerical ports go uninspected..
    so what difference would it make who's operating them, especially when all of the goods are IMPORTS anyway~
    And the US has been and will continue to be the force incharge of those inspections at its ports~
    regaurdless of ownership..

    Dubai is a emirate growing in power and wealth and one of the few that is trying to outwardly invest in a proper and productive manner to secure itself for the future when oil's power dwindles..
    They already have massive amounts of investments in the US , Europe and across the globe..
    In Stocks, properties, companies and bonds/ government investments..
    this "hoop-la" over a company takeover, which traditionally makes little change to the operations of the company with the exception of who are the profiteers, is really poorly thoughtout and quite foolish..

    another more elementary quote can be added to bring this together...

    "Barking up the wrong tree"..

    ---

    I'm getting vaclempst...
    talk amongst yourselves..

    [​IMG]
     
  2. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    while i see your point

    i think this is the least of our fucking problems in this country
    maybe if our allies kick us out of those countries it would teach us a lesson that maybe we need to learn

    also, there hasn't been much of a backlash against terrorism in general by the masses inthose parts of the world.
    they hated us before this shit popped off, and this will just be yet another reason to hate us.

    between guantanamo, iraq, and everything in between, a ports deal isn't going to make or break our rep.


    also, governments change.
    just because UAI is our friend now doens't mean they will be in ten years
    since they would have intimate knowledge of operations of ports, including timetables and security requirments (even if they don't actually carry out security operations, as effective managers they would surely have knowledge of security protocols)

    our port 'security' is simply pathetic
    and i hope that this whole shit draws enough attention to it for things to change at leats a little bit

    and lastly i'll add that the characterization of JFK and LaGuardia as 'mafia-infested' is indicative of anti-american bias in that paper.
    shit works both ways.
     
  3. H. Lecter

    H. Lecter Senior Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2004 Messages: 1,844 Likes Received: 4
    It was an editorial by a free-lance writer.. not a leading news article

    Governments don't change the same when they're Emirates, with Emirs..
    as opposed to republics with elected officals..

    And this is the business relationship that I'm speaking about,
    not the message it sends to the "people"~

    Strickly.. business.
    That's what truely makes all this shit go 'round.

    And JFK & LGA are gi-normously mafia-infested, everything and anything can get through,
    as long as it's through thier hands..
    and they're not all the stereotypical Sopranos-style mafiosos..
    they're Russians, Chinese and Colombians as well...
    Money talks,
    Again.. Strictly.. business.


    >>>our port 'security' is simply pathetic
    and i hope that this whole shit draws enough attention to it for things to change at least a little bit<<

    !
     
  4. Dick Quickwood

    Dick Quickwood 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Aug 25, 2002 Messages: 14,783 Likes Received: 14
    i'm sure there was some kind of secret deal with that company
     
  5. lord_casek

    lord_casek 12oz Royalty

    Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Messages: 27,078 Likes Received: 1,007
    uhhh, this port is still being rented by dubai port world.
    they just did it all sneaky like by using an american front company.
    whom, i believe is a subsidiary of halliburton (i don't think i'm mistaken)

    anyhow, a month ago or so newsweek "predicted" this as happening.


    fucking elites.
     
  6. Dawood

    Dawood Elite Member

    Joined: May 8, 2002 Messages: 4,677 Likes Received: 146
    I had a feeling that would happen too.
    That they would just release a report with an american
    front company to make all the naysayers happy and business
    as usual.
     
  7. lord_casek

    lord_casek 12oz Royalty

    Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Messages: 27,078 Likes Received: 1,007

    yeah, i kinda figured that was happening, too.
    anyhow, this is just a front in itself to keep our
    attention away from things like the patriot act being
    voted abck in (which it was).

    for those who say there isn't a one world government agenda,
    you guys need to look harder at what's going on.
     
  8. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
  9. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    ^that's a good link.
    i haven't read it all yet but,
    globalization.... *sigh* .....

    i'll add.
    i'm glad i've got twelve ounce to remind me that i need to consult more sources for my news
    who woulda thought.
     
  10. lord_casek

    lord_casek 12oz Royalty

    Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Messages: 27,078 Likes Received: 1,007
  11. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    A while back Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard official who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations, had a longer piece in the Far Eastern Economic Review describing just how shaky port security is. Worth reading. And P.J. Crowley of the Center for American Progress did a short piece back in 2004 on how the administration just doesn't take this stuff very seriously at all: "Rather than increasing federal assistance in the face of new security requirements, the Bush administration's port security grant request is actually a huge reduction from the still inadequate total of $500 million allocated for port security in the first three years of the Bush administration."

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...roader_por.html
     
  12. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
    if one thing happened with this whole thing... it brought port security to the for front. secure the ports AND our borders. article 4 section 4. tell congress and the pres to read it.
     
  13. 2342

    2342 Junior Member

    Joined: Aug 19, 2005 Messages: 208 Likes Received: 1
    At this point why the fuck can’t we outsource/subcontract our current administration? The Swiss have a good reputation….

    A republican I am not- however I came across this little bit of info- thought I would pass it along for what it’s worth:

    http://freerepublicanscom.redstate.com/sto...3/23/214941/618

    Here We go Again - Worse that Dubai Ports, Much Worse
    By: FreeRepublicanscom· Section: Diaries

    U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Cargo
    WASHINGTON - In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute, the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.

    The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present.


    Some background on Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. from NewsMax back in 2001


    From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world's largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe.
    Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal.

    An animated map on the Hutchison-Whampoa Web site shows the extent of the encircling movement with seaport operations in Africa (Tanzania International Terminal Services Ltd.) in the Western Hemisphere with seaport services in Beunos Aires, Argentina; Freeport, the Bahamas; Veracruz, Mexico; and at both ends of the Panama Canal.

    According to a 1999 investigative report by the American Foreign Policy Council, "Hutchison Whampoa, through its Hutchison International Terminals [HIT] subsidiary or Panama Ports Company, has substantial links to the Chinese communist government and the People's Liberation Army.

    "The Panama Ports Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise [CRE], which is the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Co-operation. In its investigation into China's attempts to influence the 1996 U.S. presidential campaign, the U.S. Senate Government Affairs Committee identified CRE as a conduit for `espionage - economic, political and military - for China.' Committee Chairman Senator Fred Thompson said that CRE has `geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous.'"

    Sen. Trent Lott has described the Hong Kong firm as "an arm of the People's Liberation Army."

    The company is headed by a Li Ka-Shing, the chairman of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. Intelligence sources say he has deep connections with the Chinese Communist government.

    "Li has invested more than a billion dollars in China and owns most of the dock space in Hong Kong. In an exclusive deal with the People's Republic of China's communist government, Li has the right of first refusal over all PRC ports south of the Yangtze river, which involves a close working relationship with the Chinese military and businesses controlled by the People's Liberation Army," the AFP report stated.

    "Li has served as a middle man for PLA business dealings with the West. For example, Li financed several satellite deals between the U.S. Hughes Corporation and China Hong Kong Satellite [CHINASAT], a company owned by the People's Liberation Army. In 1997 Li Ka-Shing and the Chinese Navy nearly obtained four huge roll-on/roll-off container ships, which can be used for transporting military cargo, in a deal that would have been financed by U.S. taxpayers."

    According to the Thompson Committee, Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary, HIT, has "business ventures with the China Ocean Shipping Company(COSCO) which is owned by the People's Liberation Army."

    COSCO, which failed in a notorious Clinton-backed attempt to lease the former U.S. Naval base in Long Beach, Calif., has been criticized for shipping Chinese missiles, missile components, jet fighters and other weapons technologies to nations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, the AFP report revealed.

    "In 1996, the U.S. Customs Service seized a shipment of 2,000 automatic weapons aboard a COSCO ship at the port of Oakland, California. The man identified as the arms dealer, Wang Jun, is the head of China's Polytechnologies Company, the international outlet for Chinese weapons sales. Jun also sits on the Board of CITIC, China International Trust and Investment Corporation, the chief investment arm of the Chinese central government. It is also the bank of the People's Liberation Army, providing financing for Chinese Army weapons sales and for the purchase of Western technology."

    The military intelligence report also warns that "Hutchison containerized shipping facilities in the Panama Canal, as well as the Bahamas, could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC, or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas."


    Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that "the Chinese have always indicated that the proper way to fight a war was not to make a frontal assault but rather to get around behind the enemy and cut off all their supplies."
     
Top