Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'll continue to contend that it is just as likely that the British Company has a terrorist working for them as the UAE company would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Bush is a moron and I can't wait until his term is up so we can get somebody in there with a shred of intelligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Bush is a moron and I can't wait until his term is up so we can get somebody in there with a shred of intelligence Excellent analysis. You've added so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 At least it's the UAE and not Iran or Saudi Arabia. UAE is one of the more American-friendly Arab countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Excellent analysis.You've added so much! thanks buddy, enjoy rooting on the dumbest President this country has seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 thanks buddy, enjoy rooting on the dumbest President this country has seen. calling the President dumb exposes the weakness in your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 calling the President dumb exposes the weakness in your position. there must be a heck of a lot of Americans, Republican and Democratic alike, that have a weak position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 there must be a heck of a lot of Americans, Republican and Democratic alike, that have a weak position. No doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is one of those cases where I just throw my hands in the air and say I don't know what I'm talking about. It really all depends on what the ownership of a port means. If it basically means that the UAE is incharge of spending the money to replace the cranes in exchange for the ability to collect port usage fees, then this whole thing is pretty dumb. there still is such a thing as US customs right? And every ship has to have it's manifest cleared through a US customs agent who is going to be given higher executive authority over the port than any of these guys, right? But then again, I don't work in a port, so I don't know if there are really giant loopholes that could be used that make this a really bad idea. It all rests on the idea of how much ownership they really have. I have to believe though that since the ports were already foreign owned that we don't think the owning of the ports has anything to do with port security. But I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 there must be a heck of a lot of Americans, Republican and Democratic alike, that have a weak position. What Kilmer's trying to say is that regardless of whether or not you think he is dumb, saying "the president is dumb" is not a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Kilmer, im not trying to get in a pissing match with you. I am just furious with Bush and his policies. I do not need to go into a detailed explanation of them, they have been stated many, many times on this board by numerous people. So with that said, i'll squash this back and forth banter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 King w was just on tv quick blurb, tough guy will veto any bill from Congress that threatens his selling out of American security to his Arab buddies. Impeach the traitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Kilmer is dead on.http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1677 I thought this was a pretty good point Thousands of innocent people were killed on September 11th, if a thousand Muslims were detained and questioned then so be it. Don't get mad at the system get mad at the terrorists. Because terrorists come in all shapes and sizes we need to rethink how we run every aspect of Homeland Security. If it means cutting any foreign owned businesses out of any security detail then so be it. My security and the safety of my family comes way before my feelings on whether or not someones feelings get hurt or if free trade laws are obeyed. Just make it safe. If a scenario leads any reasonable person to beleive that it could cause a breach in security then that scenario must be scrapped. Move on find a better way that the American people as a majority are safe with. We deserve that at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Like I said before: Iran & North Korea no longer need a missile to hit us with a nuke. This is a bad deal for America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'll continue to contend that it is just as likely that the British Company has a terrorist working for them as the UAE company would. So you really think a company owned and operated by the UAE, in the hot bed region, isn't more likely to have terrorist ties than a British owned company? Common sense dictates otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Common sense dictates otherwise. No, common sense dictates that the Arab company will even be more vigilant when it comes to security. Billions of dollars are at stake; a terrorist incident could be potentially devasting to Dubai Ports, much more so than a non-Arabic company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Good point Lucky. If it comes out that the company abetted the terrorists at all in the event of an attack we'd seize the ports. They have a LOT to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 So you really think a company owned and operated by the UAE, in the hot bed region, isn't more likely to have terrorist ties than a British owned company? Common sense dictates otherwise. You won't find much of that in this thread. Many here want the non-democraticly elected leaders & royal family of a Middle Eastern Muslim State that is a known hub for terrorist and drug smuggling activity to have operational control of all the major ports of the USA. I wonder if Iran has anything on that companies employees? I wonder what a gay Muslim that works for that company would do to keep his secret a secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't really have a problem with this, though it is kind of annoying to see the politicians try to play around with this for political purposes. Then again, they are politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Guys, when you see the WOMEN they will be bringing over, everything will be made clear. Trust me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Some things to think about: - The UAE port company is owned and controlled by the UAE government. - The port authority would be given advance notice of military shipments. - UAE is the origin of 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and the shoe bomber was born there. - The government of UAE was the only nation ( besides Pakistan ) to support the Taliban. - This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign government. - The UAE is a travel hub for Bin Laden's operatives. You can rationalize this however you wish, but you cannot deny the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No, common sense dictates that the Arab company will even be more vigilant when it comes to security. Billions of dollars are at stake; a terrorist incident could be potentially devasting to Dubai Ports, much more so than a non-Arabic company. But I don't want our security entrusted to their vigilance. They are not a Security organization, as Kilmer has repeatedly stated. Yes they have a lot to loose, but we have more to loose. It just isn't worth the risk because there isn't a proportional gain, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 No, common sense dictates that the Arab company will even be more vigilant when it comes to security. Billions of dollars are at stake; a terrorist incident could be potentially devasting to Dubai Ports, much more so than a non-Arabic company. Stop making sense, this thread is about nationalist hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.