6 US Ports sold to Arab firm [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Bulldogcakes

02-16-2006, 04:12 PM

<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/16/D8FQEAHO8.html" target="_self" title="White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co">White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co</a>

The Bush administration on Thursday
rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion
sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over
significant operations at six major American ports.
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by
a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies
seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council
spokesman Frederick Jones said. 
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to
ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security
Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on
this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from.
We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted." 
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds
of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the
purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. 
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at
shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans,
Miami and Philadelphia.  <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/16/D8FQEAHO8.html" target="_self" title="White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co"></a>

bobrobot

02-16-2006, 08:05 PM

Do U Mean USB Ports ???<img title="oy vey" height="227" alt="oy vey" src="http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/USBPorts.gif" width="439" border="0" />Holy FUCK, it's nicely spaced across the whole Eastern seaboard!!!

This message was edited by bobogolem on 2-17-06 @ 12:07 AM

PapaBear

02-16-2006, 08:09 PM

You can't beat a good port.<img height="560" src="http://www.beckstonesartgallery.co.uk/gust_exhib/08_Port-wine.jpg" width="404" border="0" />

Judge Smails

02-16-2006, 08:37 PM

This sounds like a job for . . . Portman!<img src="http://www.cswu.cz/cast/portman_n/07.jpg" border="0" />

PapaBear

02-16-2006, 08:49 PM

The deal was brokered at the...<img height="281" src="http://www.urbanaxis4pets.com/images/items/797RPPugPortlyPub_RetroPe.jpg" width="216" border="0" />

tele7

02-16-2006, 09:32 PM

bobrobot

02-17-2006, 03:17 AM

I guess now it's the Middle Eastern Seaboard!<img title="Middle Eastern Seaboard" height="496" alt="Middle Eastern Seaboard" src="http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/SCANSB/b-1574.jpg" width="384" border="0" />

A.J.

02-17-2006, 04:13 AM

Big deal.  The Mob runs all of our ports anyway.

landarch

02-17-2006, 04:23 AM

I long for the day when EVERY news story doesn't begin with "White House defends" or "Bush Administration denies" or "White House Supports" and then is followed up by something awful or ludicrous or scandalous.  Is it just me, or is that the only thing that seems to come out of these guys?  Was it always this bad?  How the hell does one group of cronies and criminals that are supposedly representative of its people, get away with doing so many things its populous disagrees with?

mendyweiss

02-17-2006, 04:28 AM

A.J. wrote: Big deal.  The Mob runs all of our ports anyway. Should be an interesting showdown between the Gambinos and Sheiks. I know who I'm betting on.

WRESTLINGFAN

02-17-2006, 03:25 PM

These guys are going to be super busy  <img title="po" height="365" alt="po" src="http://namtiti.free.fr/ecusson%20usa/new%20jersey/Port%20Authority.JPG" width="315" border="0" />

FUNKMAN

02-17-2006, 03:32 PM

i heard today only 5% of imports are inspected.  i don't understand why it can't be a higher number than that. i guess not enough money and resources. oh yeah that's right, we're spending a trillion and have most of our soldiers in Iraq making sure people can vote, oops my bad...

FUNKMAN

02-17-2006, 03:34 PM

oh yeah and that trial of Sadaam is going real smooth too...and i called myself an optimist in gvac's thread

KC2OSO

02-17-2006, 05:13 PM

FUNKMAN wrote: i
heard today only 5% of imports are inspected. 
<hr width="100%" size="2" />  That's a true and
fucking frightening statistic.  A 40'/20' container(s) would be
the easiest way to get a nuke(s) or whatever else in and it could be
easily done. 
A typical vessel gets into and they have only a few hours to unload and
load the vessel because it's so expensive to work a ship and they have
to work with the tides and keep schedules etc..  Letters of credit
expire. 
Dozens and dozens of containers go on and off the ship at each
port.  Few are actually opened by customs and looked at. 
They get dropped on a train or truck and off they go.Wal-Mart, Target, and every other importer has to keep their supply chain going. 
Listening to Liddy's son on OnA explain today that the
shipper/shipment
has to be inspected at the origin was very true but naive. Thousands of
containers in any given week through US ports from any number of
unknown origins. 
Nothing will be done about this until we get kicked in the
balls again.  Too many people are getting way too rich on
international trade to be careful. 
 <blockquote />

furie

02-19-2006, 08:20 AM

We already have sold our ports to a foreign power. we have little say in the matter

This message was edited by furie on 2-19-06 @ 12:21 PM

newport king

02-19-2006, 07:59 PM

that trial of Sadaam is going real smooth too...i'm rooting for him.this port deal is awful. they obviously know how fucking tacky this looks. why allow it?

FUNKMAN

02-19-2006, 08:01 PM

this port deal is awful. they obviously know how fucking tacky this looks. why allow it?money talks... and boom goes the dynamite!

PapaBear

02-19-2006, 08:39 PM

furie wrote: We already have sold our ports to a foreign power. we have little say in the matter This message was edited by furie on 2-19-06 @ 12:21 PM We still have the legal right to nix the sale.Who would have thought that an Arab company would be able to profit when a member of the Bush family is in office? By the way... Dubai (the country where the company is from) still recognizes the Taliban as the rightful leaders of Afghanistan.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wallbash.gif" border="0" />

pennington

02-20-2006, 01:50 PM

KC2OSO wrote:  Dozens and dozens of containers go on and off the ship at each port.  Few are actually opened by customs and looked at.  They get dropped on a train or truck and off they go. This is true, Customs rarely opens containers unless they feel they have a reason to. These Customs guys are smarter than think, though. If the goods are coming from a factory or freight consolidator that they know is legit and is going to an importer that they know is legit and the paperwork is all in order, then yes they will let it go through.It's a small industry and they will check containers coming from questionable areas or going to questionable companies. You have to be incorporated, have a tax # and be registered with Customs to import a container. Plus you have to have freight forwarders, shipping lines and US Customs Brokers to get past (all of whom will report their suspicions since they don't want to be part of it/go to jail/loose their license).They also have monitors along the shipping lanes at the ports to detect radio activity and explosives. Plus, I have no doubt there is a lot of other things they're doing that we don't know about.Overall, I think they do a pretty efficient job.

KC2OSO

02-20-2006, 02:28 PM

pennington wrote: KC2OSO wrote: Dozens
and dozens... Overall, I think they do a pretty efficient job. 
<hr width="100%" size="2" />I'm sure customs does a great job but I
doubt someone or some group bent on doing something harmful is worried
about lying on paperwork.  I haven't been in shipping since before
9/11.  (Worked for Maersk for too many years)  I imagine
security has gotten much tighter since.  The hole thing still bugs
me even though security is handled by US concerns.Do you know what exactly was/is owned by the British now Arab fims?<blockquote />

Bulldogcakes

02-20-2006, 06:15 PM

I cant believe we actually let those cocksucking Brits run our ports for so long.    

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-20-06 @ 10:16 PM

Greggie44

02-20-2006, 06:28 PM

I remember a story a buddy told me when I was living in Long Beach in 2002.  His buddy worked at the port.  One day they opened up a container and a couple dozen Chinamen came storming out violently.  They scrambled in all directions.  I don't know how many were caught or got away. (The story was in the paper the next day)  These guys traveled all the way over here in a container.  Used sternos for food and pissed in bottles.  What would some crazy fucks do if they had a little help on this side of the pond?

INFOSTUD

02-20-2006, 06:42 PM

This is absolutely F'ed up. It better be stopped or the entire country will be full of dirty bombs. Here's a novel F'ing idea--the USA runs the USA's ports.  We had giving the enemy the tools that they need to F' us up. EVERY US CITIZEN SHOULD CONTACT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM NOT TO LET THIS HAPPENED!!!!  

This message was edited by INFOSTUD on 2-20-06 @ 10:46 PM

FMJeff

02-20-2006, 11:43 PM

INFOSTUD wrote: This is absolutely F'ed up. It better be stopped or the entire country will be full of dirty bombs. Here's a novel F'ing idea--the USA runs the USA's ports. We had giving the enemy the tools that they need to F' us up. EVERY US CITIZEN SHOULD CONTACT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM NOT TO LET THIS HAPPENED!!!! 

This message was edited by INFOSTUD on 2-20-06 @ 10:46 PM  If you honestly think our ports are any less safe than they were before you're out of your mind. With hundreds of thousands of containers coming in from around the globe every day its a wonder why we haven't been hit through that particular vulnerability yet. It's just impossible to check every container, nor would they ever. Shipping would come to a screeching halt. I wouldn't be too concerned with this. Whether the bombs come through this particular series of ports or another they will find a way to get them in.  Let's also bear in mind most dirty bombs can be easily transported on a small boat that could dock on any one of thousands of ports along the east,west and gulf coasts of this country. Port security is a complete and utter waste of time.  If I was a terrorist I'd have it shipped to the third world and drive a catamaran in style to a Katrina battered wooden dock and unload it with friends, shipping champagne and cigars in celebration of how easy it is to smuggle shit into this country.

INFOSTUD

02-21-2006, 06:36 PM

I agreed totally that our ports are NOT safe. But damn it!!! We don't have to make the situation worst.  If you don't contact your elected representatives and voice your opinion on this issue and other issues facing the United States, then you are part of the problem!!!

KC2OSO

02-22-2006, 04:43 AM

Apparently <a href="http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/8977.php" target="_self">others are concerned</a> also.  Veto shmeto."Critics have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the UAE as
an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE
was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear
components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scient"..but there's no reason to be worried.

A.J.

02-22-2006, 05:50 AM

"Critics have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base.They also used the United States as an operational and financial base.  Let's blow us up!

Doctor Manhattan

02-22-2006, 07:01 AM

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-22-bush-ports_x.htm" target="_blank">White House: Bush didn't know about ports deal</a>Posted 2/22/2006 10:30 AM:     President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.<a title="White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co" href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/16/D8FQEAHO8.html" target="_self">White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co</a>Posted Feb 16 3:48 PM The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports. So, when did Bush know about this deal? And hasn't he been threatening a Veto of any Congressional block of this deal since before Wednesday Feb 22nd?And people on this board questioned why I was so Anti-Bush. His family is going to make out great with this deal and we're going to be screwed.

Doctor Manhattan

02-22-2006, 08:41 AM

<div class="articleHeadline">White House Says Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal</div><div class="articleSubHeadline">Citing National Security, Lawmakers Brush Aside Veto Threat</div><div class="smallText">By TED BRIDIS, AP</div>WASHINGTON (Feb. 22) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.Wait, isn't the president in charge of his own administration? W knows about that right? I understand that the president doesn't literally do everything, and isn't part of every aspect of the executive branch. But he does need to approve stuff right?But remember, he doesn't really know how government works:Gov George W Bush—Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000: "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."For those who don't know. The judicial branch, headed by the U.S. Supreme Court, interprets laws. W's branch, The executive branch enforces laws. The legislative branch, which on the national level is the U.S. Congress, passes new laws. So he did get 1 out of 3 right. Not so good.  This is a web site for kids that explains it. <a href="http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc.asp">http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc.asp</a>

torker

02-22-2006, 11:58 AM

pennington

02-22-2006, 12:37 PM

FMJeff wrote: If I was a terrorist I'd have it shipped to the third world and drive a catamaran in style to a Katrina battered wooden dock and unload it with friends, shipping champagne and cigars in celebration of how easy it is to smuggle shit into this country.  Sadly, wrapping it up in a bale of marijuana and letting some Colombians bring it in is probably an easier way to get it here.Fortunately nuclear devices are hard to make and difficult to transport. The terrorists are much more proficient with low-tech devices.

DarkHippie

02-22-2006, 12:54 PM

White House Says Bush Didn't Know About Port DealWho the fuck is running the country?

Furtherman

02-22-2006, 12:59 PM

DarkHippie wrote:  White House Says Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal  Who the fuck is running the country?He was busy hunting.  I mean, peppering.

newport king

02-22-2006, 01:22 PM

i have not heard 1 person outside the administration say this is a good deal. and bush is just the big swinging dick saying he'll veto any attempt to stop this.does anyone know the first step in starting a coup de tat?he never won the first election9/11 happened on his watch (despite what the clinton bashers say, he was still in charge at the time)never found bin ladenstarted a war under false pretensessaid war is a fucking disaster, that is possibly turning into a civil war between shiites and sunnis(you can't give democracy to people that dont want it at gunpoint)gave up a cia agents coverKatrina and the resulting loss of new orleanshis VP shot a guy in the faceand now selling off the entire easter seaboard to a nation tied to terrorismim sure theres more but that was just off the top of my head...how much more timeis left on the clock for him? can't someone step in and just say what the fuck?

sr71blackbird

02-22-2006, 01:46 PM

Maybe we are letting them have control of these ports in exchange for their help in combatting terrorism?

Recyclerz

02-22-2006, 01:51 PM

furie wrote: We already have sold our ports to a foreign power. we have little say in the matter This message was edited by furie on 2-19-06 @ 12:21 PM Torker replied:  Eminent domain.  Now it's mine.....bop!Now it's <strike>mine </strike>Halliburton's.....bop I'm loving this (obviously) not only because the brouhaha makes it less likely that this administration will get the chance to fuck up the tax code or Social Security further but for the irony: Bush/Cheney et al.  sold the Iraq war with the meme "All those people over there are basically the same - they hate us for our freedom so let's go smash 'em in the face, drain the swamp and make good Republicans out of 'em."  Now W's making the argument "No, wait,  these are the good ones taking over the ports.  You know, the guys that made my family rich!  So trust us on this."  Right away Georgie.Evil Opie voice: Nice!

FUNKMAN

02-22-2006, 03:57 PM

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060222/ts_nm/security_ports_arabs_dc_1;_ylt=AlFbxWEQjvcW8KVf8LN zRoATv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl" target="_self">Arabs see phobia behind uproar over ports deal</a> "This is Arab phobia and it is clearly politically motivated," he told Reuters.He said opponents of the deal "are reopening 9/11 wounds, turning this into an Arab-Muslim conspiracy to control the lives of Americans.""They want public opinion to sabotage improved relations, but they picked the wrong country," Alani added.

Gvac

02-22-2006, 05:23 PM

<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=VTBAR&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME">Breaking
News</a> 

This message was edited by Gvac on 2-22-06 @ 9:27 PM

Doctor Manhattan

02-23-2006, 12:10 PM

So no one cares anymore?

sr71blackbird

02-23-2006, 02:18 PM

I think Bush is motivated to have this deal go through with the Arab run ports as a sign of trust and as a reward for their cooperation in our operations in their countries. True some terrorits have come from there, but that is not the same as saying that everyone from there is a terrorist.  Regardless, since 90% of the shit that comes through these ports is unchecked anyway, it really doesnt matter who's running it. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen regardless.  This might be an olive branch. At the same time, I dont see why anyone but ourselves needs to run these ports, but thats corporate America now.  Seems as if we (Americans) do not get up in arms when our jobs are taken away, and we dont vote people out or in that support American workers job security, so maybe it also serves us right.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 03:12 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html</a>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dubai Ports World has
agreed to postpone its plans to take over management of six U.S. ports
after the proposal ignited harsh bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill. I
don't why, but I'm not surprised at all that a foreign company is more
sympathetic to our concerns than our own president is. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html" target="_blank"></a>

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 05:40 AM

Foreign nations managing our ports is nothing new, this is just people blatantly getting freaked out by non-whiteys doing it.  Sure, their ports run smooth and have perfect safety records, but who cares?  THEY'RE AY-RABS, DAMMIT!!!The overall situation is being blown way, WAY out of proportion by ignorant people who suddenly think they're experts on these things after a 5 minute blurb on the evening news...though the laughably bad response of the administration can't be pointed out and mocked enough.  "It's OK, people!  THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW  ANYTHING ABOUT IT EVER!  Go about your business!"  Heh...too fuckin' funny...I'm gonna love seeing how history views these idiots.

mendyweiss

02-24-2006, 05:58 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Foreign nations managing our ports is nothing new, this is just people blatantly getting freaked out by non-whiteys doing it.  Sure, their ports run smooth and have perfect safety records, but who cares?  THEY'RE AY-RABS, DAMMIT!!!The overall situation is being blown way, WAY out of proportion by ignorant people who suddenly think they're experts on these things after a 5 minute blurb on the evening news...though the laughably bad response of the administration can't be pointed out and mocked enough.  "It's OK, people!  THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW  ANYTHING ABOUT IT EVER!  Go about your business!"  Heh...too fuckin' funny...I'm gonna love seeing how history views these idiots.I agree. I am pretty sure the Saudi govt owns a pretty good share of U.S stocks and U.S. bonds. SO they own a fair amount of our economy, I don't think our security is any worse off for it. I think we have more important battles to fight.

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 06:06 AM

The sad thing is, people against this aren't even bothering to try and mask what they're feeling...it's flat out, "I don't like them because they're Arabs."  Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call.

cupcakelove

02-24-2006, 06:10 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Foreign
nations managing our ports is nothing new, this is just people
blatantly getting freaked out by non-whiteys doing it. Sure, their
ports run smooth and have perfect safety records, but who cares?
THEY'RE AY-RABS, DAMMIT!!!The overall situation is being blown
way, WAY out of proportion by ignorant people who suddenly think
they're experts on these things after a 5 minute blurb on the evening
news...though the laughably bad response of the administration can't be
pointed out and mocked enough. "It's OK, people! THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT EVER! Go about your business!" Heh...too fuckin'
funny...I'm gonna love seeing how history views these idiots.
I don't care that a foreign company is managing our ports, its the
connection the 9/11 terrorists had to this country in paticular that
concerns me.  I really think what their connection was, and what
has changed since then needs to be addressed.  The public has
every right to know these things, and deserves more than a 'just trust
me' response from the president.  I'm just happy the UAE company
realizes this and is willing to give us what our president isn't.

A.J.

02-24-2006, 07:32 AM

The 9/11 terrorists had a connection to Germany.  I guess business with them is now verboten.

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 07:34 AM

Canada, too.9/11 never manages to stop being such a shitty and blatant kneejerk excuse for everything.

FUNKMAN

02-24-2006, 07:38 AM

it's usually all about being 'up-front' from the get-go. people probably could have learned to live with it. but when you find out after alot of business dealing has already been done then you lose the 'trust' value...

Doctor Manhattan

02-24-2006, 08:16 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call. Weren't the 9/11 hijackers at Boston stripclubs before they went to Logan airport??Foreign nations managing our ports is nothing new, this is just people blatantly getting freaked out by non-whiteys doing it.  Sure, their ports run smooth and have perfect safety records, but who cares?  THEY'RE AY-RABS, DAMMIT!!!I think Congress was more upset that Bush tried to sneak this past them, which he later said he should not have done. (I don't know if "sneak" is the right word)

This message was edited by SKW on 2-24-06 @ 12:22 PM

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 08:40 AM

SKW wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call. Weren't the 9/11 hijackers at Boston stripclubs before they went to Logan airport?? I thought it was Vegas.Either way, I'm talking about people who are living their daily lives far removed from the "ye olde angry Muslim" type that most seem to be picturing in this deal.  There's a difference between someone who clearly goes out of their way to embrace the "western lifestyle" their entire life to try and make as much money as possible and a few guys who realized they were about to die and went to a titty bar.  It's an apples and oranges comparison.  Look at Bin Laden's family for a perfect example.  Yeah, he's rich, but he just inherited that money.  The rest of his family couldn't be more different from him in their embracing of western traditions and economics.  This whole port issue reeks of people just deciding off the bat "Arabs=bad," completely ignoring that foriegn management of our ports is nothing new, completely ignoring that the firms in question have better safety and security records than any other managing group in the past.  In short, if someone really wants to use the ports to sneak something in, they're actually going to be LESS likely to be able to do so with the new companies.  This deal is about money, period.  Unless these Arab firms have been creating a massive global front their entire existence JUST to build up to this deal so they can get at America, the odds that their managing the ports makes us more vulnerable is nil.  You get right down to it, this whole furor is ultimately over people hating Arabs, and that's it.  You can dress it up any way you want, but history and facts point to this management company actually providing BETTER security for our ports than any previous company in the same role.

A.J.

02-24-2006, 09:03 AM

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in over a year so when I was driving back from CT the other day I thought I'd give him a listen (since I was sick of hearing the same 10 songs on FM) radio.  He actually made a very good point about this port debate (I'm not quting verbatim):"Admit it:  when you first heard about this port deal, the first thing you pictured was a bunch of turbanned Arabs blowing up our ports."For ME, I pictured the opening of "Team America" with the little French kid.<img height="266" src="http://www.animatedbliss.com/images/THEATRES/2004/team-america_03.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

Doctor Manhattan

02-24-2006, 11:12 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: SKW wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call. Weren't the 9/11 hijackers at Boston stripclubs before they went to Logan airport?? I thought it was Vegas.There's a difference between someone who clearly goes out of their way to embrace the "western lifestyle" their entire life to try and make as much money as possible and a few guys who realized they were about to die and went to a titty bar.   But didn't they kill themselves and the people in the towers in the name of their religion? Doesn't the idea of a "titty bar" go against that religion?

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 11:38 AM

SKW wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: SKW wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call. Weren't the 9/11 hijackers at Boston stripclubs before they went to Logan airport?? I thought it was Vegas.There's a difference between someone who clearly goes out of their way to embrace the "western lifestyle" their entire life to try and make as much money as possible and a few guys who realized they were about to die and went to a titty bar.   But didn't they kill themselves and the people in the towers in the name of their religion? Doesn't the idea of a "titty bar" go against that religion?*Slams head against the wall over and over again*How many terrorists do you see running multi-billion dollar global industries a la the company that may be managing the ports (and again, Bin Laden doesn't count.  He inherited his cash)?  You're comparing Joe Blow-schlub on the street who is suckered into becoming a terrorist to guys who have spent their entire adult lives as insanely rich businessmen doing things exactly like what they're trying to do with the ports here in the US?  Seriously?  Please, explain to me exactly how the 9/11 terrorists reflect on the lives of the industrialists running the port managing companies.  Short of, "THEY'RE ALL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST," I don't really see much of a legit argument outside of straight up racism and paranoia.  Foreign management of our ports is nothing new.  The companies that want to take over have fantastic safety and security records.  This isn't a huge deal in and of itself...the administration acting like the president never knew about it, yes, is very worrisome.  But a foriegn compnay managing our ports is business as usual.

Doctor Manhattan

02-24-2006, 12:06 PM

formatting messed up...

This message was edited by SKW on 2-24-06 @ 4:15 PM

Doctor Manhattan

02-24-2006, 12:14 PM

Damn it. quoteing sucks now...You said "Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call."I said that the 9/11 terrorits had embraced western economics and lifestyles before attacking us.I was not talking about the people who want to run the 6 ports.

This message was edited by SKW on 2-24-06 @ 4:15 PM

TheMojoPin

02-24-2006, 12:33 PM

SKW wrote: Damn it. quoteing sucks now...You said "Yeah, the Arab people that have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles are the ones to worry about, good call."I said that the 9/11 terrorits had embraced western economics and lifestyles before attacking us.I was not talking about the people who want to run the 6 ports.This message was edited by SKW on 2-24-06 @ 4:15 PM And again, going to a nudie bar before you kill yourself isn't embracing ANY lifestyle except one that's batshit insane.  Look at how these guys spent the overwhelming bulk of their lives...their actions just before 9/11 don't jive with the rest of it (and it delves into the whole seperate issue of whether or not all of the terrorists were participating in the attacks for religious reasons, something that is still fiercely contested to this day).  So these guys don't even remotely resemble "the Arab people who have fully embraced western economics and lifestyles," like those who won the bids to manage the ports.  Again, apples and oranges.  Again, foreign management of our ports is nothing new.  Again, this company has a stellar record of security and safety with their ports.  And on top of that, wouldn't they have a ton to lose if they allowed terrorist "stuff" to sneak in through the ports, seeing as they are a Middle Eastern based company?  They want to run the ports to make money and encourage trade.  Terrorist attacks will do the exact opposite.

Doctor Manhattan

02-24-2006, 02:23 PM

I don't know what the 9/11 terrorists lives were like before the strip clubs just before their attack, so I can see your point.But again, I was not trying to tie the port company with 9/11 attackers.

grandzu

03-03-2006, 09:33 PM

I was actually in Dubai in December and it is full of
Indian people, not even Arabs.  The Arab population there is like
4%  The country is a playground for rich Europeans. 

 
Also this Dubai company has Americans on its board of
directors, including an ex-nayy officer.  Plus they have already
been running parts of ports in other foreign countries for years
without one incident and a perfect safety record.  Besides the US
port security will still be, as it has been, under the control of
Homeland Securityand the Coast Guard. 
 
One of the biggest issues with this sale is that it is a
Muslim country and they economically boycott Israel.  The most
outspoken critics at first were Frank Lautenberg, and Chuck
Schumer.  They have stated that they oppose the sale because of
that. 

 
All this uproar over this non-issue just shows the world
how silly and off course the US priorities are.   If this
sale is stopped, it will be disgraceful. 
 
BTW a British company just bought Keyspan Energy, thereby
controlling power grids in this country.  No problem there I guess. 

 
<blockquote />

sr71blackbird

03-04-2006, 05:23 PM

BTW a British company just bought Keyspan Energy, thereby controlling power grids in this country.  No problem there I guess.  Ummm... it is actually very concerning to me on a professional level

Bulldogcakes

03-05-2006, 02:13 PM

<h1><a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/" target="_self" title="Hillary Clinton 'unaware' of Bill's Dubai ties">Hillary Clinton 'unaware' of Bill's Dubai ties</a>[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton, a leading opponent of DP
World's takeover of some US port operations, was this week forced to
admit that she did not know her husband had advised Dubai leaders on
how to handle the growing dispute. But
former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab
Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator
wife.Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial
disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving
speeches in Dubai in 2002. Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas.</h1><h1>/QUOTE] Hilarious. I'm soooooooo sure she "didn't know". If you're going to be such an outspoken critic of the policy, dont be stuffing your bank account at the same time. And yet so typical from just about everyone in Washington.   </h1>

Bulldogcakes

03-09-2006, 03:53 PM

<a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060309/D8G8BQ0O0.html" target="_self" title="DUBAI PULLS OUT">DUBAI PULLS OUT</a>
WASHINGTON
(AP) - Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned
company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over
operations at U.S. ports.
"DP World
will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity,"
the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement
that capped weeks of controversy.
Relieved
Republicans in Congress said the firm had pledged full divestiture, a
decision that one senator said had been approved personally by the
prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060309/D8G8BQ0O0.html" target="_self" title="DUBAI PULLS OUT"></a>

Cunt_Hanzcraft

03-09-2006, 03:54 PM

HA HA!  You said "PULLS OUT"!

Bulldogcakes

03-09-2006, 03:59 PM

<a href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aaf675ba-afb6-11da-b417-0000779e2340.html" target="_self" title="Arab ally senses Bush no longer has control in Washington">Arab ally senses Bush no longer has control in Washington</a>Mr Bush had warned repeatedly that blocking the deal would send a
dangerously discriminatory message to the world. He threatened
repeatedly to veto any congressional legislation. But
with his public approval ratings at record lows and his Republican
party abandoning him, one of the US’s closest allies in the Arab world
concluded that he was no longer in control in Washington.The
decision by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai,
is likely to avert the political backlash that hit Washington last
month and may prevent any further damage to diplomatic and security
relations between the countries. But it underscored that Mr Bush, who
still has nearly three years to go in his second term, has become
perilously weak.

A.J.

03-10-2006, 03:23 AM

Nice.  Let's shit over one of the few friends we have in the Middle East.  Fucking politicians.

TheMojoPin

03-10-2006, 07:40 AM

This is so disgusting.  People are slapping themselves on the back for this like, "yeah, racism RULES!"  Talk about giant steps backwards.

A.J.

03-10-2006, 08:49 AM

I thought Bush's comments today about this were spot-on:Speaking to a National Newspaper Association conference in Washington, Bush added, "I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East. In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."And if you think that is too partisan, then see this article about the economic repercussions for the U.S.: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes" target="_self">read</a>I love how these stupid politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) are congratulating themselves that they somehow acted in the hallowed name of national security by wanting to exercise oversight over flaws in port security.  BULLSHIT.  Why now?  Why not before an Arab-affiliated company was involved?  This is racially-motivated pure and simple.  I'm also surprised how the Arab-American community has failed to take these assholes to task on this.  If an Israeli company had been treated this way I'll bet the reaction would have been quite different.

TheMojoPin

03-10-2006, 09:54 AM

Amen.  People ranted and raved because they were picturing "ay-rabs" running every day-to-day to aspect of the ports, when that simply wasn't true.  IT'S A MANAGEMENT COMPANY.  They'd essentially handle money and paperwork.  Americans would still be providing the same shitty, ineffective security as before, you xenophobic twats.

Bulldogcakes

03-10-2006, 02:56 PM

A.J. wrote: I thought Bush's comments today about this were spot-on: Speaking to a National Newspaper Association conference in Washington, Bush added, "I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East. In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East." And if you think that is too partisan, then see this article about the economic repercussions for the U.S.: <a target="_self" href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes">read</a>I love how these stupid politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) are congratulating themselves that they somehow acted in the hallowed name of national security by wanting to exercise oversight over flaws in port security. BULLSHIT. Why now? Why not before an Arab-affiliated company was involved? This is racially-motivated pure and simple. I'm also surprised how the Arab-American community has failed to take these assholes to task on this. If an Israeli company had been treated this way I'll bet the reaction would have been quite different.  This was unfortunately a perfect political storm that the White House, despite them being 100% right on this issue they just couldn't fight off. It appealed to the ignorant racist wing of the Republican party, which is a very large part of its base. And it allowed Democrats to position themselves TO THE RIGHT of the White House on a national security issue and still keep their base happy, which rarely ever happens. When Chuck Shumer and Sean Hannity agree on something, the White House has a problem.    By this same logic I guess all the hotels, businesses and office towers owed by shieks from Saudi Arabia should be sold off too, since they could be used for terrorist purposes to harm Americans. Xenophobic stupidity.  The Arab-American community hasn't taken them to task because unfortunately, they cant. They're not well organized politically, and therefore have little clout, and barely any spokespersons to present their side of the story. I'll never forget when in NYC a few years back protests were held in front of the UN, one day for Israel, one day to support the Palestinians. Every politician from within 100 miles of NYC showed up for the Israeli protest. The next day for the Palestinians? No one. Despite the fact that they drew similar crowds. One of the Palestinian rally organizers got on stage and said "Where are all the politicians? Doesn't anyone care about us? Aren't we Americans, too?" Answer? No.

furie

03-10-2006, 03:15 PM

ok, but now who's going to run the ports? we have no such US enity that's capable.

The Jays

03-10-2006, 04:03 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">TheMojoPin wrote: Amen. People ranted and raved because they were picturing "ay-rabs" running every day-to-day to aspect of the ports, when that simply wasn't true. IT'S A MANAGEMENT COMPANY. They'd essentially handle money and paperwork. Americans would still be providing the same shitty, ineffective security as before, you xenophobic twats.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I found an interesting article in the paper today, basically tieing two big stories in NY area together; the ports and the Mafia. Basically, it says the biggest threat to our ports is the rampant criminal activity ongoing amongst Mafia ties inside the longshoremen's union.

But let's nevermind that, Sopranos starts on Sunday!

This message was edited by TheJays on 3-10-06 @ 8:04 PM

Recyclerz

03-10-2006, 07:28 PM

ok, but now who's going to run the ports? we have no such US enity that's capable.Two choices: 1. Halliburton; 2. The Carlyle Group.  And since when is being capable a prerequisite for getting a government contract?And while I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that the opposition to the ports deal is mostly based on atavistic prejudice, all I keep hearing when Bush tries to take the high road on this are chickens coming home to roost.

Bulldogcakes

03-11-2006, 06:26 AM

Recyclerz wrote:And while I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that the opposition to the ports deal is mostly based on atavistic prejudice, all I keep hearing when Bush tries to take the high road on this are chickens coming home to roost. What chickens? Promoting free trade? Trade deepens the ties between nations, and gives you leverage in dealing with them. As well as incentives for them to help you, since it could effect their interests as well. It gives nations mutual interests and may be the best tool we have promoting good relations abroad. Also, this gives the radicals in the mideast exactly what they wanted. They want to make the case that this is a war of the West vs the Arab world, a clash of civilizations. And now the most western, most modern pro-US ally in the Arab world has been told they're not welcome here.    <blockquote />

TheMojoPin

03-11-2006, 08:25 AM

Recyclerz, I'll give you that the administration handled this about as well as they fuck up everything else they even look at, but overall this deal had very little, if any legitimate consequences.  Squashing it in the way it was done harms us farm more than allowing the company to manage our ports ever would have.  This is something Bush and co. should have been open with and announced from the very bgeinning, instead of trying to usher it in quietly.

Recyclerz

03-11-2006, 04:47 PM

What chickens? Promoting free trade? Trade deepens the ties between nations, and gives you leverage in dealing with them. As well as incentives for them to help you, since it could effect their interests as well. It gives nations mutual interests and may be the best tool we have promoting good relations abroad. I did my Eco homework in school (and work for a foreign-based multi-national corp.) so I'm (almost) all for free trade.  The chickens I'm talking about are the consequences of this Administration's unthought through, horribly executed and generally half-assed foreign policy.  W's response to 9/11?  The "War on Terror" - where neither war nor terror were ever defined.  Just trust us, they said.  Then we were off to remake the Islamic southwest Asia into our and Israel's pals.  "Going to kick a little ass (anybody remember the "drain the swamp" meme <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" />) and teach those boys to be respectful of property rights and the stability of global markets, so they won't want to blow us up anymore."  Just trust us, they said.  "Inside every gook, I mean Iraqi, there is an American trying to get out.  Why, they'll greet us as liberators."    Then during the 2004 election, the Bush/Cheney message wasn't much more than "The world is full of evil doers who hate us for our freedom and want to kill us.  Who are you going to trust to protect you and your kids - us kick ass first and take names later (if we feel like it) macho guys or those Democratic pussies who can't even defend themselves from our attack ads.  You have to trust us - the life of your kids depends on it."  And 51% of us bought it.But now, as the abyss looms in Iraq, with the myth of the "Protector of the Realm" exposed as BS by Katrina and everything else that's gone wrong for the last fifteen months, a bunch of those 51% choose to come over to my side of the fence when W asks the country to trust him again on the ports issue and issue the only proper response - "Fuck you, Mr. President.  You've misunderestimated us for the last time."Am I happy or comfortable that most of the opposition to the ports deal is fueled by xenophobia? No, but given that this is the crop that's been planted I'm not surprised.  And saying that this Dubai deal is a proximate cause for the people of the Islamic world not to trust the USA is like saying the real cause of the New Orleans flood was somebody's leaky faucet that wasn't fixed.  Yes, it's unfair to the Dubai businessmen that the deal got blown up.  But I believe the only long-term damage that is caused by it is the embarassment that W feels as he is exposed as a guy who couldn't close a deal for his Dad's business associates.And, as you might expect, my sympathy is under control.