Bush Stands Up Against Bigotry

[rtwngAvngr]

I get that because SOMEONE is going to run the ports--they are not going to sit there until they're covered with cobwebs. That is reality is it not? It's like our elections--you gotta choice between two candidates---you can chose not to vote but we still get a president. If you don't like the UAE as a candidate for WHATEVER reason, let's hear you come up with a second choice and defend it.

I can't do that operation, commence with the skull smashing. since I can't do the appendectormy, the skull smashing is all we have left.

 

[dilloduck]

I can't do that operation, commence with the skull smashing. since I can't do the appendectormy, the skull smashing is all we have left.

I guess the patient dies. Good work, Doctor. Next time you might wanna ask for help from someone who is willing and CAN do that operation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I guess the patient dies. Good work, Doctor. Next time you might wanna ask for help from someone who is willing and CAN do that operation.

But THE DEAL is the hammer!

This is called a false dichotomy. Either I think of someone off the top of my head or the deal must go through. That's what you're doing. It's sloppy and beneath you, frankly.

 

[dilloduck]

But THE DEAL is the hammer!

This is called a false dichotomy. Either I think of someone off the top of my head or the deal must go through. That's what you're doing. It's sloppy and beneath you, frankly.

Wrong--the deal doesn't have to go through. We could just shut down the ports until some company that we trust comes along.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But THE DEAL is the hammer!

This is called a false dichotomy. Either I think of someone off the top of my head or the deal must go through. That's what you're doing. It's sloppy and beneath you, frankly.

So the deal doesn't go through. Then what?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So the deal doesn't go through. Then what?

Maybe we pay the brits extra to stay on. Or someone starts a company. Or we nationalize it ourselves. That's preferable to a foreign government. If it's gonna be nationalism, i'd prefer it be american.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Maybe we pay the brits extra to stay on. Or someone starts a company. Or we nationalize it ourselves. That's preferable to a foreign government. If it's gonna be nationalism, i'd prefer it be american.

Cost is of no concern, then. Whatever it takes. Yes?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Cost is of no concern, then. Whatever it takes. Yes?

some concern. But security trumps cost in this scneario. EVERYTHING cannot be for sale, though world bank and IMF hate to hear it.

 

[acludem]

What irritates me is this - if this sale had been to a Saudi company, no one would've said a thing because of the Bush's longstanding love affair with the Saudi royal family. If it had been to an Iranian company, Bush would be opposing it. UAE has had some links to terrorism, three of the 9/11 hijackers were from there, and they have active Al Qaeda cells there. It is advisable, I think, to be sure our national security is not being compromised. Britain has no such links. For George W. Bush to try and make this a racial issue is ludicrous. I'd be saying the same thing if the sale was to a North Korean company, or even to a Russian company for that matter. Port security is bad enough as it is, we have to be sure we are not compromising it further. Congressional oversight is needed here. I'm not saying veto the deal all together, just make sure everything is check out thoroughly about 8 times before we let this transaction happen.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

What irritates me is this - if this sale had been to a Saudi company, no one would've said a thing because of the Bush's longstanding love affair with the Saudi royal family. If it had been to an Iranian company, Bush would be opposing it. UAE has had some links to terrorism, three of the 9/11 hijackers were from there, and they have active Al Qaeda cells there. It is advisable, I think, to be sure our national security is not being compromised. Britain has no such links. For George W. Bush to try and make this a racial issue is ludicrous. I'd be saying the same thing if the sale was to a North Korean company, or even to a Russian company for that matter. Port security is bad enough as it is, we have to be sure we are not compromising it further. Congressional oversight is needed here. I'm not saying veto the deal all together, just make sure everything is check out thoroughly about 8 times before we let this transaction happen.

acludem

You really think so? Check out your theory with other board members right here. Ask em if Saudi Arabia would be all peachy with them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You really think so? Check out your theory with other board members right here. Ask em if Saudi Arabia would be all peachy with them.

I can tell you it would NOT be peachy with me!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What irritates me is this - if this sale had been to a Saudi company, no one would've said a thing because of the Bush's longstanding love affair with the Saudi royal family. If it had been to an Iranian company, Bush would be opposing it. UAE has had some links to terrorism, three of the 9/11 hijackers were from there, and they have active Al Qaeda cells there. It is advisable, I think, to be sure our national security is not being compromised. Britain has no such links. For George W. Bush to try and make this a racial issue is ludicrous. I'd be saying the same thing if the sale was to a North Korean company, or even to a Russian company for that matter. Port security is bad enough as it is, we have to be sure we are not compromising it further. Congressional oversight is needed here. I'm not saying veto the deal all together, just make sure everything is check out thoroughly about 8 times before we let this transaction happen.

acludem

So when it comes down to it, you really don't care as long as you get a pep speech about process.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Maybe we pay the brits extra to stay on. Or someone starts a company. Or we nationalize it ourselves. That's preferable to a foreign government. If it's gonna be nationalism, i'd prefer it be american.

First let me say, at the end of the day, I agree with you. I would rather an American company own the ports in America. Welcome to a free market, Unless we change the way everything works, ensuring that is really not realistic. The only real way to avoid it would be to put all ports under government control, and we can see how well things have gone with the federal government handling things like public schools.

I understand the concern, but let me ask you something. I've asked three other people and have yet to get an answer. Put the hammer down for a second.

If security for the ports will not change, who works at the ports will not change, and who actually runs the ports will not change, then what is the problem? What are you afraid will happen with UAE signing the checks that couldn't have happened a month ago, or wouldn't happen anyway even if the Brits stayed on?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First let me say, at the end of the day, I agree with you. I would rather an American company own the ports in America. Welcome to a free market, Unless we change the way everything works, ensuring that is really not realistic. The only real way to avoid it would be to put all ports under government control, and we can see how well things have gone with the federal government handling things like public schools.

I understand the concern, but let me ask you something. I've asked three other people and have yet to get an answer. Put the hammer down for a second.

If security for the ports will not change, who works at the ports will not change, and who actually runs the ports will not change, then what is the problem? What are you afraid will happen with UAE signing the checks that couldn't have happened a month ago, or wouldn't happen anyway even if the Brits stayed on?

I think they will gain intimate knowledge of how procedures work, how packing lists are examined to determine if a container is searched ... other key information that would be valuable to an enemy. And I don't trust that the DICTATOR of UAE has no terrorist sympathies.

 

[dilloduck]

I think they will gain intimate knowledge of how procedures work, how packing lists are examined to determine if a container is searched ... other key information that would be valuable to an enemy. And I don't trust that the DICTATOR of UAE has no terrorist sympathies.

Who is dictator of the UAE these days?-I forgot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who is dictator of the UAE these days?-I forgot.

http://www.uae.org.ae/general/index.htm

They call them RULERS! lol

the dubair ruler is : H..H. Sheikh Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum

The Rulers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The President of UAE H.H. Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan

Vice President & Prime Minister of UAE & Ruler of Dubai H..H. Sheikh Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Supreme Council Member & Ruler of Sharjah H.H. Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Mohammed Al Qassimi
Supreme Council Member & Ruler of Ajman H.H. Sheikh Humaid Bin Rashid Al Nuaimi
Supreme Council Member & Ruler of Umm Al Quwain H.H. Sheikh Rashid Bin Ahmed Al Mu'alla
Supreme Council Member & Ruler of Ras Al Khaimah H.H. Sheikh Saqr Bin Mohammed Al Qassimi
Supreme Council Member & Ruler of Al Fujairah H.H. Sheikh Hamad Bin Mohammed Al Sharqi

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.uae.org.ae/general/index.htm

They call them RULERS! lol

the dubair ruler is : H..H. Sheikh Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum

WOW--a bunch of dictators !!
I'm scared now !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

WOW--a bunch of dictators !!
I'm scared now !

It only takes one dictator to ruin your entire day!

 

[dilloduck]

It only takes one dictator to ruin your entire day!

Hey---as long as they aren't arabs I can handle em

 

[OCA]

So we agree then, to refuse UAE, a close Allie, the port deal, is just stupid.

A close ally?????????? Since when? Before last week you never heard two sentences about them. Ally my ass. Yeah they are kind of like an ally like Pakistan. Lol what a joke.