visionary Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That horrible repressive country...look at how they opress women! They actually force international women to go to their country and play professional sports like Tennis there! Good God, won't someone please think of the children? http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2339525 Someone has to stop them...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Anyone remember the 9/11 Commission report where it detailed Al-Queda using SURVEILLANCE of targets before striking? Will it be easier for them to find out what the ports look like having an Arab Emirates managerial staff holding our plans, knowing our frequencies, and working with Border Protection- or would it be easier for them to know what is going on if it is an AMERICAN company running it? only an idiot would say we would be safer with Arabs owning our own strategic ports. They would be open to financial blackmail, nuclear blackmail, or terrorist blackmail. This will not stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Anyone remember the 9/11 Commission report where it detailed Al-Queda using SURVEILLANCE of targets before striking?Will it be easier for them to find out what the ports look like having an Arab Emirates managerial staff holding our plans, knowing our frequencies, and working with Border Protection- or would it be easier for them to know what is going on if it is an AMERICAN company running it? only an idiot would say we would be safer with Arabs owning our own strategic ports. They would be open to financial blackmail, nuclear blackmail, or terrorist blackmail. This will not stand. That's nice...but uh what American company is trying to buy this, and since when has this standard ever been considered before now? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On a side note/question for those who have actually done the research If this deal does not go through, what happens then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Well, its 5 years late, but Americans are finally talking about the issues of securing our ports, and hopefully soon, we'll be talking about securing our borders. I think what you're seeing here is where Bush comes down in a debate between national security and business. Bush comes down on the side of business. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but if a company in the UAE is operating our ports and profiting from our trade deficit, we need to take all the steps necessary to secure that port, safeguard sensitve information, and regulate the operators to make sure that nothing which compromises our security ends up in the hands of our enemies. Like I said, all of this should have happened 5 years ago. But hey, better late than never, eh, Bushies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 For apparently the 1 billionth time. THERE ARE NO AMERICAN COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THIS LINE OF WORK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 For apparently the 1 billionth time.THERE ARE NO AMERICAN COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THIS LINE OF WORK. So keep the Brit company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 So keep the Brit company Are you sure they want it, aren't they trying to sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 So keep the Brit company 2 things. 1- The Brit company was bought by the UAE company. 2- There is no proof or guarentee that the British Company is any less of a danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 2 things.1- The Brit company was bought by the UAE company. 2- There is no proof or guarentee that the British Company is any less of a danger. Our government has trusted the British for over 50 years now when it comes to National Security. There is no comparison to the level of trust that we already have with the British. Hell, **** it, why don't we just go ahead and let the Chinese run Wall Street? I've said it before: Iran and N. Korea no longer need a missile to deliver WMD's, they can ship it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I really wish people would educate themselves about this topic and stop the demagoguery. Wishful thinking. Continue with your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I really wish people would educate themselves about this topic and stop the demagoguery.Wishful thinking. Continue with your ignorance. Here's a little education for you: - The UAE port company is owned and controlled by the UAE government. - This would not be a private company owning the port activties, it would be a foreign 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 other than Pakistan to support the Taliban. - The UAE is a travel hub for Bin Laden's operatives. - The UAE is a hub for drug smuggling and money laundering. No, please don't continue with the ignorance. Wake the **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Then again, do we really want the Brits involved in our port security? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11504146/ j/k ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 This was put out by Forbes in November... Super Secret... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Then again, do we really want the Brits involved in our port security?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11504146/ j/k ;-) No, the question is do we really want a non democratic Muslim state in the Middle East associated with all the points I listed above, involved in our National Security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 I love the people here arguing the merits over this transaction on the basis that have complete faith in a commitee that deliberates in secrecy and that they know nothing about. And then they call the rest of America paranoid bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Actually- no foreign company should run our ports. Yet- there are no american companys that does this anymore. How pathetic is that. Did anyone know that the British ran our ports? There is no individial company, it's government owned. This would be the same thing if we let a Russian or Chinese company run our ports. Dubai maybe friendly today but tommorrow they can be our enemy. Manifests can be forged. Cargo can be sneaked in. The U.S. barely screens our ports now. This is risk you can't take. God doesnt anyone know? the british controled one port and what you say is the worst is true, the reason Bush is vetoing the congresional action is that the CHINESE have control over most ports and will have control over more if this falls through! this is not a joke either, im serious the chinese have control over a majority of our trade ports God help our country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Are you ready to start paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce instead of 79cents?What about 7 dollar cucumbers? Seal that border! Just don't cry to me about your grocery bill. ..... im not, look more closely at what you posted and i clearly say, "but it would cost us taxes" or something to that degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 :laugh::rotflmao::laugh::rotflmao::laugh:Fantastic mental image, thats great! I'm not kidding. And it's not a great image when you're in charge of a room full of Saud controllers that suddenly stop controlling to pray. Then one day I'm the Watch Supervisor, and I come on shift and I notice maintenance guys installing a new speaker in the IFR Room. I thought it was to replace the crappy shout lines we had in that facility, but come 330pm or whatever time afternoon prayer is, here comes the call to prayer blaring in the IFR room. I calmly went down and bashed the speaker in. It started a near international incident for a day or three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 The company is being owned by the GOVERNMENT of the UAE.and that government just happens to be a benevolent dictatorship. and, oh yeah, they just happen to rule by SHARIA Islamic law. employees who work for the shipping company "donate" one day a month salary to Palestinian solidarity. The UAE was one of three countries to recognize the Taliban (!!) two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE. money and operational planning was conducted in the UAE. what happens when Iran (a neighbor) has a nuclear weapon and tells the King "give us some plans about the New Jersey port or we nuke you"? Every Republican needs to contact their representatives and get them to vote to override a veto. this needs to be stopped on so many levels. sadly it is more complicated than all this, but i agree with you it is unaceptable. but..... the chinese want these ports too, and they also own quite a few ports here already, not to mention very few US companys control ports anymore-something that needs to be corrected.if it were up to me foriegn companies would e compensated then stripped of ownership like so many american citizens for public projects. if the government does it to the people who put them in office, then why not foreigners from our enemys homeland? strip ownership after compensation and give american companys the oportunity to bid on the ports, after all it is OUR country not their and they do not have the rights we do here, so why should they be treated like this is their country when it is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 For apparently the 1 billionth time.THERE ARE NO AMERICAN COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THIS LINE OF WORK. Rush- you are a Skins fan? Actually, why is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Bush does not control the ports and had no knowledge of the deal until it appeared in the media. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Foreign companies buy the rights to operate those ports all the time. The UAE had to pass strict government regulations in order to get this deal. The UAE is not an enemy. They have been cooperative in the WOT and if you target them unfairly it will send a message to Arab allies that they will be judged on their ethnic backround, not their deeds. Do you think Al Qaeda would have less of a chance to penatrate our ports with or without this UAE deal? We still have the same government agencies regulating these ports and the same coast guard watching them. It changes little. The reason Democratic leaders are making an issue of this is to create more anti-Bush propaganda. I find it funny how some Democratic leaders spend so much time downplaying the threat of terrorism and then suddenly find something they can jump on that they can call a grave risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 sadly it is more complicated than all this, but i agree with you it is unaceptable. but..... the chinese want these ports too, and they also own quite a few ports here already, not to mention very few US companys control ports anymore-something that needs to be corrected.if it were up to me foriegn companies would e compensated then stripped of ownership like so many american citizens for public projects. if the government does it to the people who put them in office, then why not foreigners from our enemys homeland? strip ownership after compensation and give american companys the oportunity to bid on the ports, after all it is OUR country not their and they do not have the rights we do here, so why should they be treated like this is their country when it is not? It doesn't have as much to do with rights as it does the economy. Our economy benefits from that foreign trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Bush does not control the ports and had no knowledge of the deal until it appeared in the media. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Foreign companies buy the rights to operate those ports all the time. The UAE had to pass strict government regulations in order to get this deal. The UAE is not an enemy. They have been cooperative in the WOT and if you target them unfairly it will send a message to Arab allies that they will be judged on their ethnic backround, not their deeds. Do you think Al Qaeda would have less of a chance to penatrate our ports with or without this UAE deal? We stil have the same government agencies regulating these ports and the same coast guard watching them. It changes little.The reason Democratic leaders are making an issue of this is to create more anti-Bush propaganda. I find it funny how some Democratic leaders spend so much time downplaying the threat of terrorism and then suddenly find something they can jump on that they can call a grave risk. So what's your explaination for the Republicans and every other conservative int he country being against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 2 things.1- The Brit company was bought by the UAE company. 2- There is no proof or guarentee that the British Company is any less of a danger. :doh: :doh: :doh: you've got to be kiding me, answer this question for me:i take an average joe off the street of london and one from the UAE. and i have one gun. i say choose who you want to give the gun and they will have ownership of it and do as they please with it in relation to you as an american and i lock the door- who would you choose? i mean this to say would you rather trust a brit or a middle easterner with your security? just remember one is likely to want you dead too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 It doesn't have as much to do with rights as it does the economy. Our economy benefits from that foreign trade. yeah and we would still get forgein trade through these ports as we have for 300+ years. having a foriegn company own our ports doesnt do jack **** of a diference in relation to the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.