PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: clips on February 22, 2006, 08:58:05 AM
-
y\'know for all practical reasons, this deal should not have went down. Bush is tryin to win over arab nations for the sake of security. Regardless if this group was a friend to the u.s. or not, the sound of some arab company controlling our ports just sounds crazy....and bush is all for this s**t...and states he\'ll veto anything from republicans or dems that try to shut down this deal...i know i might catch heat from some along the lines of "see clips you\'re bein racist yourself, this arab country has been an allay in the war on terror"....
Now they want us to believe that the prez was in the dark on this entire deal until the very last moment?...:rolleyes:...maybe i\'am bein a wee bit ignorant, but i felt at least that an american firm should be over lookin the ports..that just makes the most sense. but of course whatever makes the most sense in this administration, doesn\'t make any sense to them at all....pathetic...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/
-
Bush is one of the worst presidents ever if you look at it in the respect of foreign affairs and immigration policies.
As a strong right wing conservative, I cannot wait until he is gone so McCain can fix everything Bush broke.
-
i swear, stupidity is contagious on the intarweb.
the english company that previous had the contract was bought by one that\'s based in the UAE. so what?
heard a radio DJ this morning talking about about it. he said "i didn\'t notice an englishman slamming a plane into the trade towers. how can we trust any arab from the middle east?"
how fucking paranoid and ethnocentric could we possible be.
like there wasn\'t checks, balances, and govt regulation on the ports already.
we\'re just going to say "here islam, control our infidel ports! yay!"
:rolleyes:
-
It\'s not just another corporation based in the UAE. It\'s a state-owned UAE company. Here\'s a brief list of highlights on the United Arab Emirates: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden\'s bank accounts.
Still think we\'re paranoid? You can set up all the regulations and procedures you want, but all it takes is one arab employee in this state-owned company to manipulate some data in a shipping system, and get anything they want transported onto US soil.
Democrats have been calling for tightening of security at US ports for years now. The Bush administration never gave a shit about it and still don\'t. We now know that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld knew about this deal before it hit the news. The question should be: If our nation\'s leaders don\'t take an interest in our national security, then who does? Who approved this deal?
-
and it takes one white guy from the middle of nowhere farm town to blow up the Murrah Building in downtown oklahoma.
untill you start calling your state representative and asking him questions and voicing your concerns (which i bet you haven\'t), you\'re supposed to stfu and vote for whoever you want every 4 years.
politics is a privledge, not a right
-
Originally posted by mm
and it takes one white guy from the middle of nowhere farm town to blow up the Murrah Building in downtown oklahoma.
untill you start calling your state representative and asking him questions and voicing your concerns (which i bet you haven\'t), you\'re supposed to stfu and vote for whoever you want every 4 years.
politics is a privledge, not a right
WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that because "shit happens," we should stick our heads in the sand and not take any reasonable precautions to protect our ports?
My representative is Henry Waxman, and not only do I agree with 95% of his policies on important issues, but I HAVE contacted him to voice my opinion on several occasions.
As much as you would like me to "STFU," I\'m afraid that\'s
Not
Gonna
Happen
Have a nice day. :laughing:
-
WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that because "shit happens," we should stick our heads in the sand and not take any reasonable precautions to protect our ports?
that is exactly what the general pansy ass US population wants to do.
oh, you finally figured out how to use google and look up your rep? grats!
oh, whats this?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1VhKRnJ2aQc&refer=us
Bush Didn\'t Learn of Port Deal Until After Approval
sensationalism as it\'s finest, turn off fox news, CNN, and TV entirely please.
-
Originally posted by mm
oh, whats this?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1VhKRnJ2aQc&refer=us
sensationalism as it\'s finest, turn off fox news, CNN, and TV entirely please.
What point are you trying to make? This is exactly what I said in the posts above.
Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates in "the last several days,\'\' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. By that time congressional opposition already was bubbling up.
"This didn\'t rise to the presidential level,\'\' McClellan said at the White House.
George Bush doesn\'t give a shit about security at US ports, or he would have made this a presidential level issue years ago.
-
how many issues you think a president has to deal with on any given day/hour/minute?
and how to prioritize them?
-
Personally, I would feel more comfortable if this company didn\'t take over management of these ports. The UAE is a haven of corruption to say the least. Having said that, management is not the same as security. The DoHS and the Coast Guard do that work.
This is a sticky situation because on one hand you want the continued cooperation in fighting terrorism from the UAE, yet on the other it just doesn\'t make too much sense to let them manage our busiest ports. It is not like the administration knew that the company that originally signed the contract was going to be bought out by Arabs. Why did it take so long for this to become an issue? This should have been discussed months ago instead of the media focusing on wiretapping and people like Cindy Sheehan.
I say let Congress do its investigations and postpone the handover for 45 days and see what they come up with. Bush should not veto any legislation that wants to investigate the facts - that is just idiotic.
Also, contacting your congressman is about as effective as an internet petition.
Since we are on the topic of Bush condradicting his tough stance on terror, why the hell is he opposed to securing our southern border? Build a wall, deploy the troops and actually monitor who is coming across down there. Bush should let Congress do its investigation and stop thinking everything he decides is right - 45 days won\'t hurt our relations with the UAE.
No, my account was not hacked.
-
Bush not knowing anything about the deal is really hard to believe. Especially something as sensitive as our ports?..:rolleyes:..i\'m not buying it..as far as turning off the tv?...it\'s hard not to believe something when the president himself is on tv himself endorsing such nonsense. As far as contacting my congressmen?..i honestly will say that i don\'t and probably never will do anything like that. (i have more important issues at hand). Ultimitely at the end of the day those assholes will do what they want regardless of what i say.
But at least i want them to use common sense when making critical decisions...why the f**k should i contact them when decisions such as these shouldn\'t even be an issue, and yet it is...would you let a crack addict guard 8 kilo\'s of cocaine?...no i don\'t think so...believe me i know all arabs aren\'t terrorists, but seriously,..and mm this goes out to you, i respect your view, but would you have really handed over port operations to an arab country in a post 911 world?....reflect for a minute and let that thought marinate...forget about bein politically correct and diversifyin\'....what makes the most sense?.....to me an american firm over lookin the ports makes the most sense.
-
Originally posted by clips
to me an american firm over lookin the ports makes the most sense.
There is only one problem there. There aren\'t any capable of doing it now. It is just like a lot of other things in this country - we sell out to whoever can do it the cheapest.
-
During WWII people were afraid of the Japanese buying our land.
This is something over nothing.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
During WWII people were afraid of the Japanese buying our land.
-Dan
That was 40 years after WWII. There weren\'t many wealthy Japanese businessmen running around in the 40\'s. ;)
-
My thoughts on US sports is that we dominate in most major events. j/k!
Seriously, all this fuss if over nothing. US Customs still does what it does, no matter who owns the ports.
-
good point, eik
the US govt rounded up every japanese american they could find after pearl harbor and stuffed them in "camps" because we couldn\'t trust japanese blood.
:rolleyes:
how many gas stations do i have to go in and find the indian operater being harassed because "his" people are at fault for the cost of gas
-
Some of you have gone way off the subject. We\'re not talking about rounding up arabs everywhere in the US. We\'re not even talking about preventing people of arab descent from working in ports. What I\'m saying is: should such an important link in our transportation and shipping infrastructure be managed by a corporation owned by a nation with documented ties to the very terrorists we\'re trying to defend ourselves against?
What\'s next? Are we going to outsource the FBI to the Saudi Arabians? They have good experience in running state security services. I\'m sure they could round up all the criminals very effectively. :rolleyes: Some public services in our society are critical enough that they should not be privatized. Part of the reason is, because of corporate mergers and buyouts, you never know who\'s going to be fulfilling the contract 3-5 years in the future.
BTW, I appreciate your rational views, Giga! No my account has not been hacked either. :laughing:
-
but you cant deny the dissent and distrust towards arabs because of 9/11.
the sensationalized news gets released and it\'s the talk of the town about how bush did this and bush did that, blah, blah, blah.
our society blindly hates and discriminates anything from that area of the world.
hell, 90% of americans probably couldnt point out anywhere near iraq on an unmarked globe.
and dont forget, america has documented ties to the very terrorists we\'re trying to defend ourselves against
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/nataffdaily/story/9363598/united_arab_seaports?rnd=1140645781682&has-player=unknown
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
What\'s next? Are we going to outsource the FBI to the Saudi Arabians?
Yes. That\'s what\'s next.
-Dan
-
Seriously, all this fuss if over nothing. US Customs still does what it does, no matter who owns the ports.
-
So the house slams the port deal and now the Dubai company is backing out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11741617/
-
so who can we blame when the american company fucks up?
-
Bush.
-
good...it should\'ve been an american operation from the jump....it just makes sense....bush is so obsessed with the war on terror or "error" as cored would say..;)...that he can\'t make any rational decisions...him or his administration...
-
I just think he tried to show "unity" with the arabs and overcompensated by giving them the port.
While things would probably run like they always do no matter whose in control, its a thought in the back of my mind i dont have to have anymore.
-
i guess i should really leave this alone since this deal is not gonna happen,..but shortly after the eua pullout, bush made a comment somewhere along the lines of "this decision could cost us our allies on the war on terror"...:rolleyes:...so them not having our ports is gonna cause an uproar in the arab world?..:rolleyes:...for somebody that\'s so tough on this war on terror, he seems to be kissin the ass of these countries that are actually involved in it....and "newsflash"..mr president,..but alot of countries in the arab world have been in an uproar over the u.s. foreign policies alone..way before this port deal and way before 911....