Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 03/01/2006 9:55:01 PM PST by Stajack
In light of the rampant speculation and rumor surrounding the port debate, Brit Hume dispatched Jim Angle to the Port of Baltimore on a fact finding mission. Mr. Angle interviewed a longshoreman with almost 30 years of service, a management executive with the current terminal operator (P&O Ports), as well as customs officials. The following is a summary of the findings of the Foxnews investigative report.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
WTF are we talking about? The UAE! You can play cute games with the UK/USA history angle all you want. That doesn't address the issue. We're talking recent history and you know it. Now take your bonehead opinions and stuff'em. STOP: before you stuff'em read the following.
"" The FBI conducted a detailed financial investigation/analysis of the 19 hijackers and their support network, following the September 11th attacks. This investigation initially identified the Al Qa'ida funding sources of the 19 hijackers in the UAE and Germany."
Senate Committee Statement by FBI'S John Pistole, 31 July 2003
>>>>After all, it was a citizen of the UAE, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed.
Mansoor Ijaz NRO Online 2-22-2006
"On September 11, 2001, a few hours before the Twin Towers were attacked in New York, one Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi landed in Karachi. A Saudi nation, Hawsawi was the finance manager of 9/11 operations. There is clear evidence that he moved several thousand dollars from a Standard Chartered Bank account in the UAE to Florida’s SunTrust account operated by Atta and others. Working from Dubai, he had couriered ATM and credit cards to Atta and his group in the US for paying flight training schools, buying simulators and equipment like the Global Positioning System and for booking tickets on flights taking off from various destinations early September 11."
John Wilson: Observer Research Foundation
There is Dubai's Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
Al-Maktoum, Defense Minister of the United Arab Emirates, is also Crown Prince of Dubai-an Arab Muslim country that strongly supported and recognized Afghanistan's Taliban, one of only three countries to do so. According to "From the Desert to the Derby," by Jason Levin, 10 of the 19 September 11th hijackers carried documents and identification from Dubai, a country which also has no laws against money-laundering. Why? Maybe, because money to fund September 11th's terrorism was laundered to ringleader Mohammed Atta, directly from Dubai's banks.
"Opponents of the deal also argue that the FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist."
United Arab Emirates actively participated in the following events:
1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with bin Laden in Afghanistan Complete 911 Timeline
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).
People and organizations involved: Wayne Downing, al-Qaeda, Mullah Omar, Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, United Arab Emirates
October 1996-early 2002: Arms Dealer Aligns with Taliban and ISI Complete 911 Timeline
Russian arms merchant Victor Bout, who has been selling weapons to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance since 1992, switches sides, and begins selling weapons to the Taliban and al-Qaeda instead. [Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02; Los Angeles Times, 5/17/02; Guardian, 4/17/02] The deal comes immediately after the Taliban captures Kabul in late October 1996 and gains the upper hand in Afghanistan's civil war. In one trade in 1996, Bout's company delivers at least 40 tons of Russian weapons to the Taliban, earning about $50 million. [Guardian, 2/16/02] Two intelligence agencies later confirm that Bout trades with the Taliban “on behalf of the Pakistan government.” In late 2000, several Ukrainians sell 150 to 200 T-55 and T-62 tanks to the Taliban in a deal conducted by the ISI, and Bout helps fly the tanks to Afghanistan. [Montreal Gazette, 2/5/02] Bout formerly worked for the Russian KGB, and now operates the world's largest private weapons transport network. Based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bout operates freely there until well after 9/11. The US becomes aware of Bout's widespread illegal weapons trading in Africa in 1995, and of his ties to the Taliban in 1996, but they fail to take effective action against him for years. [Los Angeles Times, 5/17/02] US pressure on the UAE in November 2000 to close down Bout's operations there is ignored. Press reports calling him “the merchant of death” also fail to pressure the UAE. [Financial Times, 6/10/00; Guardian, 12/23/00] After President Bush is elected, it appears the US gives up trying to get Bout, until after 9/11. [Guardian, 4/17/02; Washington Post, 2/26/02] Bout moves to Russia in 2002. He is seemingly protected from prosecution by the Russian government, which in early 2002 will claim, “There are no grounds for believing that this Russian citizen has committed illegal acts.” [Guardian, 4/17/02] The Guardian suggests that Bout may have worked with the CIA when he traded with the Northern Alliance, and this fact may be hampering current international efforts to catch him. [Guardian, 4/17/02]
People and organizations involved: United Arab Emirates, George W. Bush, Russia, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Victor Bout, Central Intelligence Agency, Northern Alliance
May 26, 1997: Taliban Government Is Officially Recognized by Saudis Complete 911 Timeline
The Saudi government becomes the first country to extend formal recognition of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates will follow suit. On 9/11, these three countries are the only countries that officially recognize the Taliban. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03 (B)]
People and organizations involved: Saudi Arabia, Taliban, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan
September 21, 1999: German Intelligence Records Calls Between Hijacker and Others Linked to al-Qaeda Complete 911 Timeline
German intelligence is periodically tapping suspected al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Haydar Zammar's telephone, and on this day investigators hear Zammar call hijacker Marwan Alshehhi. Officials initially claim that the call also mentions hijacker Mohamed Atta, but only his first name. [New York Times, 1/18/03; Daily Telegraph, 11/24/01] However, his full name, “Mohamed Atta Al Amir,” is mentioned in this call and in another recorded call. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2/2/03] Alshehhi makes veiled references to plans to travel to Afghanistan. He also hands the phone over to Said Bahaji (another member of the Hamburg cell under investigation at the time), so he can talk to Zammar. [Stern, 8/13/03] German investigators still do not know Alshehhi's full name, but they recognize this “Marwan” also called Zammar in January, and they told the CIA about that call. Alshehhi, living in the United Arab Emirates at the time, calls Zammar frequently. German intelligence asks the United Arab Emirates to identify the number and the caller, but the request is not answered. [Der Spiegel, 2/3/03]
People and organizations involved: Mohammed Haydar Zammar, Central Intelligence Agency, Said Bahaji, Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, United Arab Emirates
January 2-5, 2000: CIA Tracks Alhazmi and Almihdhar to al-Qaeda Meeting; Fails to Place Them on Terror Watch List Complete 911 Timeline
Hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar travel to an important al-Qaeda meeting (see January 5-8, 2000) in Malaysia. Alhazmi is in Pakistan with a ticket to Malaysia for January 2. CIA and Pakistani officials plan to have his passport scrutinized as he passes through the airport, but he changes his ticket departure date twice. Officials get confused and are not there when he leaves the country, so they still don't learn his last name. Meanwhile, Almihdhar is watched when he leaves a safe house in Yemen. Agents from eight CIA offices and six friendly foreign intelligence services are all asked to help track him, in the hopes he will lead them to bigger al-Qaeda figures. [Stern, 8/13/03] United Arab Emirates officials secretly make copies of his passport as he is passing through the Dubai airport on his way to Malaysia and immediately report this to the CIA. Therefore, by the time he reaches Malaysia, the CIA knows his full name, and the fact that he has a multiple entry visa to the US that is valid from April 1999 to April 2000. Even though the CIA now knows Almihdhar has a one-year visa to the US and presumably plans to travel there, they do not place him on a terror watch list, despite receiving guidelines the previous month on the importance of doing so. [Bamford, 2004, pp 224]
People and organizations involved: United Arab Emirates, al-Qaeda, Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Central Intelligence Agency
Summer 2000: Saeed Sheikh Frequently Calls the ISI Director Complete 911 Timeline
In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year (see June 29, 2000-September 18, 2000), and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001). However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 (see Early August 2001), so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Saeed Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta. [Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri Levy, 2003, pp 320-324]
People and organizations involved: Saeed Sheikh, Mahmood Ahmed, Mohamed Atta, United Arab Emirates
June 29, 2000-September 18, 2000: Hijackers Receive $100,000 in Funding from United Arab Emirates Location Complete 911 Timeline
Someone using the aliases “Isam Mansour,” “Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi,” “Mr. Ali,” and “Hani (Fawaz Trdng)” sends a total of $109,910 to the 9/11 hijackers in a series of transfers between these dates. [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/26/02; Financial Times, 11/30/01; MSNBC, 12/11/01; New York Times, 12/10/01; Newsweek, 12/2/01] The money is sent from Sharjah, an emirate in the United Arab Emirates that is allegedly a center for al-Qaeda's illegal financial dealings. The identity of this moneyman “Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi” is in dispute. It has been claimed that the name “Mustafa Ahmed” is an alias used by Saeed Sheikh, a known ISI and al-Qaeda agent who sends the hijackers money in August 2001. [CNN, 10/6/01] India claims that Pakistani ISI Director Mahmood orders Saeed to send the hijackers the money at this time. [Daily Excelsior, 10/18/01; Frontline, 10/6/01] French author Bernard-Henri Levy claims to have evidence from sources inside both Indian and US governments of phone calls between Sheikh and Mahmood during this same time period, and he sees a connection between the timing of the calls and the money transfers (see Summer 2000). [Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri Levy, pp 320-324] FBI Director Mueller's theory is that this money is sent by “Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.” However, of the four aliases used in the different transactions, Mueller connects this man only to three, and not to the alias “Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi.” [Associated Press, 9/26/02; New York Times, 12/10/01; 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/26/02] It appears that most of the money is sent to an account shared by Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta, who would obtain money orders and distribute the money to the other hijackers. [CNN, 10/1/01; 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/26/02; MSNBC, 12/11/01] The New York Times later suggests that the amount passed from “Mustafa Ahmed” to the Florida bank accounts right up until the day before the attack is around $325,000. The rest of the $500,000-$600,000 they receive for US expenses comes from another, still unknown source. [New York Times, 7/10/02]
People and organizations involved: Federal Bureau of Investigation, United Arab Emirates, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, Mahmood Ahmed, Marwan Alshehhi, Mohamed Atta, Saeed Sheikh, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Robert S. Mueller III, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, al-Qaeda, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, Fawaz Trdng, Isam Mansour
January 30, 2001: Hijacker Questioned at Request of CIA, Then Released Complete 911 Timeline
Ziad Jarrah flying in Florida in 2000. Hijacker Ziad Jarrah is questioned for several hours at the Dubai International Airport, United Arab Emirates, at the request of the CIA for “suspected involvement in terrorist activities,” then let go. This is according to United Arab Emirates, US, and European officials, but the CIA denies the story. The CIA notified local officials that he would be arriving from Pakistan on his way back to Europe, and they wanted to know where he had been in Afghanistan and how long he had been there. US officials were informed of the results of the interrogation before Jarrah left the airport. Jarrah had already been in the US for six months learning to fly. “UAE and European intelligence sources told CNN that the questioning of Jarrah fits a pattern of a CIA operation begun in 1999 to track suspected al-Qaeda operatives who were traveling through the United Arab Emirates.” He was then permitted to leave, eventually going to the US. [CNN, 8/1/02; Chicago Tribune, 12/13/01] Some accounts place this in January 2000.
People and organizations involved: United Arab Emirates, Ziad Jarrah, Central Intelligence Agency
September 8-11, 2001: Last-Minute Money Transfers Between Hijackers and United Arab Emirates Complete 911 Timeline
The 9/11 hijackers send money to and receive money from a man in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who uses the aliases “Mustafa Ahmed,” “Mustafa Ahmad,” and “Ahamad Mustafa.” [MSNBC, 12/11/01] This “Mustafa” transfers money to Mohamed Atta in Florida on September 8 and 9 from a branch of the Al Ansari Exchange in Sharjah, UAE, a center of al-Qaeda financial dealings. [Financial Times, 11/30/01] On September 9, three hijackers, Atta, Waleed Alshehri, and Marwan Alshehhi, transfer about $15,000 back to “Mustafa's” account. [Time, 10/1/01; Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01] Apparently the hijackers are returning money meant for the 9/11 attacks that they have not needed. “Mustafa” then transfers $40,000 to his Visa card and then, using a Saudi passport, flies from the UAE to Karachi, Pakistan, on 9/11. He makes six ATM withdrawals there two days later, and then disappears into Pakistan. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] In early October 2001, it is reported that the financier “Mustafa Ahmed” is an alias used by Saeed Sheikh. [CNN, 10/6/01] It will later be reported that Saeed wired money to Atta the month before. These last-minute transfers are touted as the “smoking gun” proving al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks, since Saeed is a known financial manager for bin Laden. [Guardian, 10/1/01]
People and organizations involved: Ahamad Mustafa, Waleed M. Alshehri, Marwan Alshehhi, Saeed Sheikh, Mohamed Atta, United Arab Emirates, al-Qaeda
September 9, 2001: Internet Forum Message Warns of 9/11 Attack Complete 911 Timeline
A message is posted on Alsaha.com, a website based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, warning of the 9/11 attack. It proclaims that in the next two days, a “big surprise” is coming from the Saudi Arabian region of Asir, the remote, mountainous province that produced most of the 19 hijackers who struck on September 11. Since 9/11, the FBI and CIA have closely monitored this website as “a kind of terrorist early-warning system” due to its popularity with Muslim fundamentalists. However, it is doubtful if they were monitoring the site before 9/11, or noticed this message. [Newsweek, 5/25/03]
People and organizations involved: United Arab Emirates, Central Intelligence Agency, Alsaha.com, Federal Bureau of Investigation
I do admit to having a friend/foe set of beliefs when it comes to the USA and protecting our homeland. I don't want America opened up to every foreigner, or every Islamic "tom, dick and harry". So, in that regard you're absolutely correct. But if you read all my posts on this thread, you'd see that I firmly beieive in placing America's interest first and foremost, both at home and abroad. Shades of gray, as you say. I have NO problem with any arrangments between the US govt and the UAE govt, for our military to have ground, air and naval bases from which our armed forces can strike the enemy.
>>>>For your absolutist doctrine ...
That's simply not true. If you didn't know it before, now you do.
Bottom line. Keep our relations with foreign govts completely separate and don't open US homeland control of critical aspects of our daily operational infrastruture, to managment or ownership by any foreign govt or entity. Period. Hope that clarifies things for ya.
You're welcome.
Always good to have some thought-provoking dialogue with a conservative brother/sister. When I said "I assume you mean the UAE", I meant, as opposed to Muslims.
As a constitutional conservative, I believe the federal bureaucracy is out of control and needs to be reigned in. Its size and scope is beyond any constitutional parameters the Founding Fathers ever dreamed of. I do see your logic, but lets fact it. The more we enlarge the federal government, the more we exacerbate the problems asscoiated with big liberal government. Conservatism dictates, the federal govt be limited, taxes be reduced, the federal bureaucracy cut down to size and our borders be secured. This may not please the anti-conservative, big governemnt, status quo centrist-globalists on Free Republic. So be it.
In my opiniion, this DPW/UAE sweetheart deal is just another example of bureaucrats gone wild. LOL
That's important to you. Okay. I was jesting. Did you even read the extensive informative I posted, or were your feelings that hurt. Read it, its fascinating stuff.
The chinks in any particular port or terminal operation can vary. But there is one constant point of vulnerability...the personnel selections by employers still matter.
And this is where they are constantly claiming that there will be few if any changes. This is something that needs further evaluation...because it is really the lynchipin issue...and such simple prior assurances can quickly go down the memory-hole once the deal is assured. This has happened previously with China, for example.
Based on testimony at the public hearings on C-SPAN, I suspect that the additional security 'assurances' beyond the freedom for us to open any particular container (which we already insist on) are three-fold:
(1) We get the container cargo manifests pre-dispatched to Customs already by electronic upload 24 hours before shipment. [ That is routine with almost everyone we permit to ship to us. ]
(2) We already have US Customs officers on site in Dubai. The scope and thoroughness of their operation is not public. Probably for good reason. This disclosure appeared to be new.
(3) We may be on the verge of going to 100% scanning...with far better devices than we currently have... for fissibles and human interlopers.
This would be a techno-solution to try and deal with the problem of questionable pedigrees on some employees...which clearly persists based on the Coast Guard reports. While some wonderful new technology is in the offing...it has to get deployed and operated by appropriately reliable personnel. And the role of the terminal operations employer in that personnel selection is still an open question. The new scanners also need to be funded and fielded by the terminal operators...who are and have been balking at having the cost shifted to them. The figure of $11 billion in capital equipment expenses are being bruted about.
Meanwhile, as ABC News little test showed just last year, a cargo of "spent uranium" successfully evaded detection, and got all the way through one of our ports. The reliability, or lack thereof, of the technology, the operational personnel, and management could combine or be exploited by an enemy in unforseen ways. There is a risk of shielding fissibles ...particularly if embedded, camouflaged, within something which may be obscurative of a neutron or gamma scanner...say as hydrogen-rich foods which scatter them, or block them such as a heavy diesel motor for example.
This article is extremely informative thereto:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18825225.800.html
Here are some good links for further study of these issues:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/14/MNG9H75MJG1.DTL&type=printable
http://www.maritimesecurityexpo.com/whitepapersarticles/Combined%20Technology%20for%20Cargo%20Security-Maritime%20Security%200.pdf
Here is an 3-year-old, 2003 article in MSNBC which notes a number of related issues which contains still-newsworthy and pertinent facts:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072951/
Some useful points therefrom:
"But with more than two billion metric tons of cargo entering U.S. ports each year, the Customs Service is only able to inspect about 2 percent of inbound containers. That’s why the agency has just instituted a rule requiring shippers in foreign ports to file a manifest, or list of cargo contents, 24 hours before steaming for the U.S..
“If the manifest description is insufficient,” said Adams, “we will send a ‘Do Not Load’ message to that carrier. If that carrier puts that container on board the ship anyway, and it sails over here, when it gets here, we will refuse to allow that container to get off in any U.S. port.”
Before the new 24-hour rule took effect, shipping firms could wait until days after their vessels set sail for the U.S. before declaring the contents of their cargo. The new rule calls for a precise description of what’s inside each container.
Now, shippers are relying on new software to manage detailed information about their cargo to comply with the closer scrutiny from customs. One of those systems is made by GT Nexus, based in Alameda, Calif.
“The GTN Portal allows people to input easily and conveniently all of that information (and) have that directly sent into the carrier’s legacy system for processing, ensuring that that information is available to be processed and filed with customs immediately,” said GT Nexus president John Urban.
Shipping lines are also starting to track individual containers with transmitters that beam their exact location to global positioning satellites.
“It’s installed permanently on the shipping container,” said Matthew Schor, president of Skybitz, a Dulles, Virginia company that makes the technology. “It has everything it needs: internal antennas, internal power, the batteries. It’s able to either on a set schedule, once a day or once an hour, send a transmission in and say where it is. Or it can respond to local alerts.”
But all this technology costs money. Securing the nation’s seaports against a potential terrorist attack could cost as much as $10 billion dollars, according to some estimates. And it will be paid by both the private and public sectors.
The hope is that new technology and new regulations will help change the old mindset on the nation’s waterfronts of “ship first, and ask questions later.”
Actually, you're disproven on that latter assertion. Dispositively, IMHO.
The evidence is discussed right here at Free Republic:
PLA Plot to Supply Missiles to Terrorists in U.S.
So Lucy, you "Have some 'splaining to do!"
Your doctrinnaire presumptions about trade and peace are thin reeds.
Furthermore, getting back to the DWP deal, we should not be just waving away the pre-9/11 conduct of the UAE. And post 9/11, the UAE still has not cooperated with turning over Bin Laden's financial records.
Bad motives on their part may be far more likely than any pretexts asserted. But so long as we don't have cooperation...we just don't and won't ever know.
They also have failed to disclose...precisely where...the $7 billion in "international" financing is really coming from for this acquisition. The lack of transparency...particularly since we are letting a foreign-government-owned entity displace private enterprise is breath-taking.
So far, Frank Gaffney has been right on the money, and I will continue to trust his judgment in these matters.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Whoa! There's a disconnect between "disinfecting" our own ports, MEANWHILE expecting that we should have free rein to pursue OUR national interests in THEIR neck of the woods. The UAE honchos would have to be FOOLS to agree to that working arrangengement. Which gets to my original point. In the absence of outright WAR, there has always been (and will always be) some GIVE AND TAKE between competing national interests. The Colonial Period is over.
Bingo!
Great point. Thanks for the reminder.
False.
Trust But Verify.
We already have U.S. Customs over there inspecting on all U.S.-bound flights, using our latest and best gamma and neutron scanners of air cargo containers.
So it isn't that there isn't a risk. And a big one at that. Its' that its being managed.
In theory...
I'm a patriot, aka."nationalist" before I am an internationalist. You sound like a "hardcore" globalist. The US govt negotiates with foreign govts to what extent the US military will be deployed in their countries under whatever special arrangements that may be. We had many military bases in Germany and Japan after WWII. In fact the US military still has a high profile in both country's regions til today. The Feds didn't support opening up critical operational infrastructure on the US homeland to the Germans and the Japanese following WWII. Now did we? Of course not.
>>>>The UAE honchos would have to be FOOLS to agree to that working arrangengement.
I've got news for you. The US govt adn the US military has always been involved in proping up dictatorships and sheikdoms throughout the 20th century. Not much has changed in the 21st century. The UAE is glad to have US military bases on their homeland. That doesn't mean the US govt, through CFIUS, is required to okay any deal that allows foreigners access to US operational infrastructure activites.
I'm a patriot, aka."nationalist" before I am an internationalist. You sound like a "hardcore" globalist. The US govt negotiates with foreign govts to what extent the US military will be deployed in their countries under whatever special arrangements that may be. We had many military bases in Germany and Japan after WWII. In fact the US military still has a high profile in both country's regions til today. The Feds didn't support opening up critical operational infrastructure on the US homeland to the Germans and the Japanese following WWII. Now did we? Of course not.
>>>>The UAE honchos would have to be FOOLS to agree to that working arrangengement.
I've got news for you. The US govt adn the US military has always been involved in proping up dictatorships and sheikdoms throughout the 20th century. Not much has changed in the 21st century. The UAE is glad to have US military bases on their homeland. That doesn't mean the US govt, through CFIUS, is required to okay any deal that allows foreigners access to US operational infrastructure activites.
Server "hiccup".
That's not a discussion point, that's a group ad hominem. And false on its face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.