<div>DC, Joan et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most US ports are run by foreign based private sector businesses at this time, but the turnover of port operations to the UAE involves a foreign government owned company, not a private corporation, operating critical US ports. This raises different concerns, given the UAE's conduct and connections in the Islamic world.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dubai Ports World is acquiring London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company that operates the port of Miami (yes, the "limeys" already operate some US ports), which in effect means that this very active US port is already associated with this state owned UAE company, and this fact is being fought in court now. Excerpt below from this link/article, that explains the objections to the UAE takeover:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_049154722.html">http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_049154722.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by the UAE owned business. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize the sale.<br><br>The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
<br><br>The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the
U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.</div>
<div>--------------------------------------</div>
<div>Although the UAE has troubling links to terrorism and terrorists, the fact that two UAE nationals were among the 19 9/11 hijackers is overshadowed by the Saudi 9/11 connections, with 15 of the 9/11 hijackers of Saudi nationality, and the ominous funding trail for the 9/11 attacks that flowed from within the Saudi borders:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fifteen of the hijackers were from <a title="Saudi Arabia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia">Saudi Arabia</a>, two were from the <a title="United Arab Emirates" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates">
United Arab Emirates</a>, and one each came from <a title="Egypt" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt">Egypt</a> and <a title="Lebanon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon">Lebanon</a>. </div>
<div>----------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The lack of a full well publicized government investigation into Saudi terrorist links to 9/11 and other terrorist activities, and the influence of the 100s of billions of Saudi US investments and US reliance on Saudi fossil fuels, on the US economy and government, is far more of a critical issue than the UAE terrorist connections, though I agree it is good that port security and the terrorist links of so called Middle East "allies" is now more on the media and congressional radar.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One critical question is how the sad state of US port security has gone so long without public demands for improvement, while we invade other nations spending hundreds of billions ostensibly to keep the US safe from terrorism? The lack of necessary improvements in US port security in recent years raises serious questions regarding the truth behind the agenda of the "War on Terror" and the functioning of the Homeland Security Dept.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>More info on the UAE below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/">http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf"><font color="#dd0011">facts about the UAE</font></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> The UAE was <strong>one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban</strong> as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.</p>
<p> The UAE has been a <strong>key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components</strong> to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.</p>
<p> According to the FBI, <strong>money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system</strong>.</p>
<p> After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was <strong>not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts</strong>.</p>
<p>-----------------------------------</p>
<p>Ted Moffett</p></blockquote></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/24/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joan Opyr</b> <<a href="mailto:joanopyr@moscow.com">joanopyr@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Area Man Dan asks:<br><br>"Where was all the bruhaha when the ports were taken over by a British<br>conglomerate? I seem to recall them invading us almost 200 years ago,
<br>about 30 years after we kicked them out of the country."<br><br>If this were 200 years ago (and assuming we'd all been transported back in<br>time with our iPods and such), I suppose we wouldn't have entrusted any of
<br>our ports to the British, them being anti-American limeys and all. But,<br>it's 2006, and George W. Bush (not King George III) announced some four<br>plus years ago that we would have no truck with terrorists or the<br>
countries that harbor, fund, and sponsor terrorists.<br><br>The United Arab Emirates harbored and sponsored Mohammed Atta, the<br>purported organizer of the September 11th attacks, and Zacharias Al<br>Moussaui. The United Arab Emirates was the last country in the world to
<br>allow flights into and out of Afghanistan after the rest of the world<br>(including Saudi Arabia) had finally agreed to isolate the Taliban. Last<br>but not least, why couldn't the Clinton Administration "take out" Osama
<br>bin Laden in late 1999 when U. S. intelligence finally pinpointed his<br>location inside Afghanistan? Because they would have taken out half of the<br>royal family of the UAE in the process; it would seem that their royal
<br>highnesses, the dictators of the UAE, were frequent and welcome guests of<br>Osama bin Laden.<br><br>This port deal stinks to high heaven. And what's the whiffiest bit? The<br>Carlyle Group's involvement. Here's a piece of trivia for you -- where was
<br>George H. W. Bush on September 11th, 2001? Meeting with the Carlyle Group,<br>which at that time included Osama bin Laden's brother.<br><br>Show me the money!<br><br>Joan "Grassy Knoll" Opyr/Auntie Establishment
<br><a href="http://www.joanopyr.com">www.joanopyr.com</a><br><br><br>---------------------------------------------<br>This message was sent by First Step Internet.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.com/">http://www.fsr.com/
</a><br><br><br>_____________________________________________________<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br></blockquote></div><br>