I dont think all Arabs are terrorists. I just think there are many better choices out there of who will be watching these ports. Do you forget who is from the U.A.E? Let me give you a hint......his first name is Osama.
I just think handing over security of our major ports to ANY other country
makes no sense.
TRI wrote:I think it is unfortunate that people in this forum think that because it is a Arab company it must be a security risk. Not all Arabs are terrorists and many are virtuous and peace loving. Trashing Arabs may be popular but that does not make it right.
Only 60 years ago we locked up Japs(no offense)in internment camps.I know, God forbid if we do anything close to this again.
Now imagine if we wanted to let the Germans or Japenese run our ports at that time of war..and as an American im told we are at war, isnt that why we have young and old soldiers dying.
What has happened to this country when our Homeland security tells us this is OK?
I wish our Gov spent all the "war"money on putting military in OUR ports instead of wasting billions elsewhere. This would have been more logical and I cant imagine any one complaining about this. But what do I know?
JackB1 wrote:I dont think all Arabs are terrorists. I just think there are many better choices out there of who will be watching these ports. Do you forget who is from the U.A.E? Let me give you a hint......his first name is Osama.
I just think handing over security of our major ports to ANY other country
makes no sense.
he was from the UAE? I always thought he was a Saudi.
What is the government doing? this is so stupid. Do they not think that potentially some of those asked to "provide security" may be linked to terrorist activities?.. & with them controlling the ports allow for others to enter the country?? i mean, look how good they did when they were told about the pontential of the use of hijacked planes as weapons into buildings (& even knew some of those were already in the country).. now i know that one cannot know what is going on all the time, but why increase a risk factor at all??
JackB1 wrote:I dont think all Arabs are terrorists. I just think there are many better choices out there of who will be watching these ports. Do you forget who is from the U.A.E? Let me give you a hint......his first name is Osama.
I just think handing over security of our major ports to ANY other country
makes no sense.
TRI wrote:I think it is unfortunate that people in this forum think that because it is a Arab company it must be a security risk. Not all Arabs are terrorists and many are virtuous and peace loving. Trashing Arabs may be popular but that does not make it right.
There are actually as many or more radical muslims in Europe as the Middle East which may sound surprising so even if this was done by a company in Europe the information about the ports could just as easily be disseminated to enemy outsiders. They are also NOT handling security at the ports! This CANNOT be done by an American company, it must foreign.
Dubai is like the Hong Kong of the Middle East, supposedly an oasis from the surrounding political turmoil.
They are more like Westerners in that instead of faith, they're all about money and catering to anyone with the dollars (although there was a story about some Western tourists who broke some Muslim law and got into trouble there).
Supposedly, the previous company which had the contract was based in London but a UAE company took that over. So the Bush admin. was reviewing that transfer for national security implications and had given this okay, not actually awarding some contract to this UAE company for the first time.
And this isn't for port security, it would be for port operations (loading, unloading ships, etc.)?
But a couple of governors filed suit to stop this transfer and one of them is Pataki so it sounds like the Admin. is at odds with a lot of people.
I'm with ya. I can think of dozens of things that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent over in Iraq would have been better used for. I guess having Iraqi's vote to put their favorite Shiite's in charge is more important than securing our own largest US ports?
bigmoe wrote: I wish our Gov spent all the "war"money on putting military in OUR ports instead of wasting billions elsewhere. This would have been more logical and I cant imagine any one complaining about this. But what do I know?
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly."'
Dear President Bush:
uhm, Georgy boy, when is the last time Great Britian launched an attack against the American homefront?? 1776 ?? 1812?? the fact is sir, there are people out there still wanting to do harm to those who elected you & by giving the UAE security over the ports, it lessens our defenses for another attack by increasing the likelyhood that Al-Queda can sneek through ports .. oh, but i can see why it's important to you & your daddy.. i mean you dont want to lose your money..
funny how Bush ignores factual links between this country and 9/11 (2 of the hijackers were from U.A.E,. country has supplied funds to terrorist organiztions) while he tried his damndest to argue the false link between Sadam and 9/11.
hulkster29 wrote:"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly."'
Dear President Bush:
uhm, Georgy boy, when is the last time Great Britian launched an attack against the American homefront?? 1776 ?? 1812?? the fact is sir, there are people out there still wanting to do harm to those who elected you & by giving the UAE security over the ports, it lessens our defenses for another attack by increasing the likelyhood that Al-Queda can sneek through ports .. oh, but i can see why it's important to you & your daddy.. i mean you dont want to lose your money..
Port security in the US will be as always handled by Homeland Security,Customs, Coast Guard ect ect. The UAE just bought the rights to run port operations. It scares me but I agree with Jimmy Carter on this. I don't think it's that big a deal.
JackB1. The UAE is not Saudi Arabia. UAE is not the home of Bin Laden. UAE is about the size of Maine and has more money per capita than God.The money that funded 9/11 was moved through many countries. Not just the UAE.
"I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me... All I ask is that you respect me as a human being." Jackie Robinson
JackD...I know the U.A.E. is not Saudi Arabia Some news channel was reporting that Osam was actually from U.A.E. even though he made his home in Saudi Arabia. I also know that 9/11 money was moved through other countries. But the fact is that there are more 9/11 <> U.A.E. connections than Iraq<>9/11 connections is enough to warrant much concern over this move. It just shows that money/oil rules out over homeland security every time.
JackDiggity wrote:Port security in the US will be as always handled by Homeland Security,Customs, Coast Guard ect ect. The UAE just bought the rights to run port operations. It scares me but I agree with Jimmy Carter on this. I don't think it's that big a deal.
JackB1. The UAE is not Saudi Arabia. UAE is not the home of Bin Laden. UAE is about the size of Maine and has more money per capita than God.The money that funded 9/11 was moved through many countries. Not just the UAE.
Bush has not vetoed any bills yet since he has been in office, but he is for some reason defiant on this one? He is not even willing to listen to the counter arguments or concerns that both parties have on this one. The parties opposing this deal just want more time to review everything. This arrogant denial and willingness of Bush to do whatever it takes to push this move through is very troubleing indeed. If Bush doesn't have alterior motives, then why on earth wouldn't he satisfy everyone crying out for more details on this deal and more checking into this UAE company? IT;s just insane. Not even the staunchest Bush supporters can defend this one.
Especially when members of Bush's own party are among the leading questioners of this plan.
This could lead to serious division in the GOP heading into the mid-term elections, as this port issue seems to be a lightning rod that is exposing the cracks in the GOP that Bush and his ever-closing inner circle are so quick to try and paper over.
The noose of the Bush oligarchy draws even tighter. Thankfully this affront to our style of government will be over Jan. 20, 2009. Can't come soon enough.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
JackB1 wrote: Not even the staunchest Bush supporters can defend this one.
Dont bet on it. They will. They will be saying it depends on what your definition of a port is.
As far as Osama ...I have seen a lot of stuff about him over the last 4 plus years. Not once have I seen anything saying he was from UAE. What network was that?
The Adminstration must have gotten to Tom Ridge in the last couple of days to hush him. Wasn't Ridge initially worried about this plan? He was on MSNBC or one of the other news networks -- can't rememeber -- yesterday pooh-poohing everyone's concerns about the whole plan, reading right from the Bush script that the UAE firms wouldn't control the ports, wouldn't control hiring and firing of personnel, that they simply would run the day-to-day operations.
I'm guessing that Tom got a pretty pointed phone call from Karl Rove or Bush himself in the last few days, telling him in no uncertain terms to be a good boy for the cause.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
pk500 wrote:
I'm guessing that Tom got a pretty pointed phone call from Karl Rove or Bush himself in the last few days, telling him in no uncertain terms to be a good boy for the cause.
Take care,
PK
Hell yeah. Many will will change their stories and fall back in with the party line. Who and what, Im betting, will depend on wether or not they are up for re-election.
I'm starting to think the only people in America who think this is a good idea work at or are puppets of those who work at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Anyone say "backpeddling"?
This gets more bizzare by the minute. I dont know what's worse....that a deal of this magnitude can be made without the knowledge of our President or the fact that he know claiming this only after all this opposition has surfaced?
Frankly, I'm not so sure what the kerfuffle is all about. I don't know that it's worth a veto if this thing passes, but insofar as this thing has already been run by the committee for foreign investment I think it's a bit silly.
It's not like we're saying, "You guys come run the place and we'll pull out all the coast guard, customs and homeland security folks." This is about the commercial operation of the ports, not port access or security.
Furthermore, the Islamo-Fascist agenda is geared toward a schism and culture war with the West. The hysteria and exploitation of the Mohammed cartoons makes this clear.
Doing high profile business with an ally like Dubai does send a clear message that we will not disengage or accept battle on our enemy's terms. It also tells the rest of the West to do the same. Finally, it also shows that there are commercial benefits to assisting us and resisting the forces of intolerance in their own region and within their borders.
Come to think of it, a veto might be called for.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Rob.....you are a bit confused. Bush wants to veto any motion that tries to block this deal. Also calling ANY Arab country's involvment with our major nation ports "silly" is well.....even sillier. This country will be running the day to day operations of these ports. Even if they aren't the final word on security, they will have the ability and insider info that could prove invaluable to any terrorist wanting to smuggle something into these ports.
RobVarak wrote:Frankly, I'm not so sure what the kerfuffle is all about. I don't know that it's worth a veto if this thing passes, but insofar as this thing has already been run by the committee for foreign investment I think it's a bit silly.
JackB1 wrote:Rob.....you are a bit confused. Bush wants to veto any motion that tries to block this deal. Also calling ANY Arab country's involvment with our major nation ports "silly" is well.....even sillier. This country will be running the day to day operations of these ports. Even if they aren't the final word on security, they will have the ability and insider info that could prove invaluable to any terrorist wanting to smuggle something into these ports.
I understand what Bush is threatening, and as I concluded it might be a good idea.
This is a job which is already done by a foreign-owned company! If it's so integral to security, why wouldn't we insist on it being done by a US company? Maybe because it's not.
It is flat-out stupid to suggest that we prohibit companies owned by Arabs or Muslims from doing a job which we have already decided could be done by an overseas company. Perhaps we should prohibit airlines from Islamic countries from flying into the US...or ships from Arab nations from docking in our ports. After all, even though homeland security still inspects these things, they have an ability and insider information that could prove valuable to any terrorist wanting to smuggle something into the US.
It is VERY important that it is perfectly clear that we are not at war with the Arab or Muslim world as a whole, and in the absence of evidence of a direct tie to terrorists will not discriminate against Arab or Islamic nations, companies or organizations.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Some news channel was reporting that Osam was actually from U.A.E. even though he made his home in Saudi Arabia. I also know that 9/11 money was moved through other countries. But the fact is that there are more 9/11 <> U.A.E. connections than Iraq<>9/11 connections is enough to warrant much concern over this move. It just shows that money/oil rules out over homeland security every time.
