Reasons to stop the port lease

[dilloduck]

1 The UAE has ties to terrorism.
2 Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
3 The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
4 The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier
report.
5 We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal
with this one.
6 The UAE is run by dictators.
7 The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the
instead of someone else.
8 The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
9 Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.
10 Why do anything with it. Just leave it like it is.
11 It's bad for GOP politicians.
12 Americans should not "sell off" America.
13 Michael savage said so
14 Arab/ Muslims don't like Israel
15 Stacey Keibler doesn't live in the UAE.
16 Bush stands to profit personally by leasing the ports to the UAE.
17 The UAE finances Hamas.


Did I miss any?

 

[dmp]

Yeah -

Stacey Keibler doesn't live in the UAE.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.
We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
The UAE is run by dictators.
The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of some one else.
The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.

Did I miss any?

You're basically right. Although some of them are overstated to facilitate your debunking of red herrings.

 

[dilloduck]

You're basically right. Although some of them are overstated to facilitate your debunking of red herrings.

Then by all means--restate them in a way that you feel appropriate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then by all means--restate them in a way that you feel appropriate.

Nah. just tiny nitpicky things like "ALL our security measures"

They're basically good.

 

[dmp]

I'm probably right, too.

 

[OCA]

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.
We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
The UAE is run by dictators.
The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of some one else.
The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.

Did I miss any?

All valid and legitimate reasons, your inbetween the lines childish sarcasm is duly noted of course.

 

[dilloduck]

All valid and legitimate reasons, your inbetween the lines childish sarcasm is duly noted of course.

explain please?

 

[5stringJeff]

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.
We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
The UAE is run by dictators.
The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of some one else.
The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.

Did I miss any?

Dillo I think we are on the same side on this argument, but allow me to debunk your list, if I may:

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
The UAE may have had ties to terrorism in the past. I think somewhere around September 12, 2001, they figured out whose side to be on. In fact, Osama bin Laden threatened the UAE in 2002 (HT: OCA) because they were too pro-Western for him.

Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
Says who? The isolationist wing of the GOP? Republicans have understood the realities of global trade for decades. I wish this ideology would hurry up and die already. Global capitalism is here to stay.
From a practical standpoint, though, which US companies bid to buy the port operations from the British company? Where are all the American companies who "ought" to do this work?

The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
I don't think it was done secretly, it's just that no one paid attention to it. I am glad we're having the national debate, though.

The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.


We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
This is pie-in-the-sky if I ever heard it. Which border issues need resolution? How long will that take? What happens in the meantime - do we close all ports operated by foreign companies?

The UAE is run by dictators.
The UAE is not going to run the port operations, so this has no bearing on teh issue.

The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of someone else.
Again, the UAE won't control the post ops - the company will. Still, this assumes that the company has something to gain by allowing such an event to occur. As it is, 2/3 of the board of directors are either American or European, so they are certainly not going to allow terrorism to occur within their control.

The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
They won't.

Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.
Great. That's why we're having the debate.

I still haven't seen a good reason to deny this company the port operations in question.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo I think we are on the same side on this argument, but allow me to debunk your list, if I may:

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
The UAE may have had ties to terrorism in the past. I think somewhere around September 12, 2001, they figured out whose side to be on. In fact, Osama bin Laden threatened the UAE in 2002 (HT: OCA) because they were too pro-Western for him.

Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
Says who? The isolationist wing of the GOP? Republicans have understood the realities of global trade for decades. I wish this ideology would hurry up and die already. Global capitalism is here to stay.
From a practical standpoint, though, which US companies bid to buy the port operations from the British company? Where are all the American companies who "ought" to do this work?

The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
I don't think it was done secretly, it's just that no one paid attention to it. I am glad we're having the national debate, though.

The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.


We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
This is pie-in-the-sky if I ever heard it. Which border issues need resolution? How long will that take? What happens in the meantime - do we close all ports operated by foreign companies?

The UAE is run by dictators.
The UAE is not going to run the port operations, so this has no bearing on teh issue.

The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of someone else.
Again, the UAE won't control the post ops - the company will. Still, this assumes that the company has something to gain by allowing such an event to occur. As it is, 2/3 of the board of directors are either American or European, so they are certainly not going to allow terrorism to occur within their control.

The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
They won't.

Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.
Great. That's why we're having the debate.

I still haven't seen a good reason to deny this company the port operations in question.

Please--debunk away--I just thought I might try to get all this in one place where we can look at it in a glance.

 

[dilloduck]

I added a # 10 just for you, OCA.

 

[OCA]

I added a # 10 just for you, OCA.

Another option that is light years better than giving it to U.A.E., there is hope for you yet. Might have to sweeten the deal though for existing port operators who are trying to getting out, need to entice them to stay.

 

[dilloduck]

Another option that is light years better than giving it to U.A.E., there is hope for you yet. Might have to sweeten the deal though for existing port operators who are trying to getting out, need to entice them to stay.

How silly of you---You would subsidize a foreign country to operate ports in the US?? Now I've heard it all.

 

[OCA]

How silly of you---You would subsidize a foreign country to operate ports in the US?? Now I've heard it all.

Subsidize? That is "pay" there slick. Think they are currently doing it for free? Pull your head out.

What the hell, you think the U.A.E. company is goung to it out of the kindness of their hearts?

 

[dilloduck]

Subsidize? That is "pay" there slick. Think they are currently doing it for free? Pull your head out.

What the hell, you think the U.A.E. company is goung to it out of the kindness of their hearts?

hey slick---they have been bought out--BOUGHT OUT---KAPUT--- DONE OVER---.

You don't like the word subsidize? Then you suggest paying some phantom FOREIGN company??

 

[OCA]

hey slick---they have been bought out--BOUGHT OUT---KAPUT--- DONE OVER---.

You don't like the word subsidize? Then you suggest paying some phantom FOREIGN company??

Did you ever attend a business school or take economic classes? Just curious.

 

[dilloduck]

Did you ever attend a business school or take economic classes? Just curious.

oh boy---is this the old I KNOW than you argument or the I have had more EXPERIENCE than you argument?

This thread has deteriorated into personal BS. Yes--I am going to sidestep and avoid you like I do dogshit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hey, great posting Dillo-- haven't been able to rep you for days, still can't.

I'd like to add some more (not that outspoken) reasons to your list:

11. Americans should not "sell off" America

12. All Arabs/Muslims hate Israel.

13. Michael Savage said so.

 

[sitarro]

Yeah -

Stacey Keibler doesn't live in the UAE.

5'11'' tall with 42" legs and wooden legged Jerry Rice placed higher.....right.

 

[dilloduck]

5'11'' tall with 42" legs and wooden legged Jerry Rice placed higher.....right.

OK OK I'll add it to the list. :teeth: