So lets get this straight

[Annie]

Reasonable commentary:

http://instapundit.com/archives/029052.php

March 08, 2006

BAD MOVE: The House Appropriations Committee just voted to block the Dubai ports deal by a whopping 62-2 margin. I've come to believe that the deal isn't a threat, though I grant that reasonable people disagree with me. But I can't help but think that this vote isn't driven by reasonable concerns as much as political panic.

That also makes me wonder -- as discussed in this podcast interview with Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker -- whether (1) This isn't really backlash stemming from the Cartoon Wars "tipping point" effect; and (2) Whether that wasn't the intent all along, to divide us from Arab/Muslim allies.

Perhaps it won't matter, and the UAE will just suck it up, attribute it to politics, and move on. Perhaps they'll still cut a reasonable deal. But just possibly, we're being had. The White House, whose handling of this whole matter has been deeply bumbling and inept, deserves its (sizable) share of the blame, but I wish that everyone else would take a deep breath and think harder. At least, if it's really port security they're worried about, there's a lot more reason for concern than the Dubai deal.

I don't know, but I'm very unhappy with how this is going, and this lopsided vote has made me unhappier.

Lots of links at site.

 

[archangel]

will they be repealing the deals of every other foriegn shipping company as well or is this just a pr move?

I do believe this would apply to any foreign Nation that is a security risk!

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Partnerships with terrorist supporting nations are not a good idea. Why are the most basic truths so foreign to you?

what reality do you live in? you don't seem to follow your own logic. by taking your approch i'm guess you don't drive since after all that does require oil maybe you can enlighten us to your secret. or is that partnership with countries like saudi arabia, yemen etc etc not allowed under your rules again are you starrting a boycot of dahmlercyrstler because of who owns one thrid of them. don't give me this goods crap either. yes or no. becuase last time i checked we aren't partners in this port deal. they own the rights far and square.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

what reality do you live in? you don't seem to follow your own logic. by taking your approch i'm guess you don't drive since after all that does require oil maybe you can enlighten us to your secret. or is that partnership with countries like saudi arabia, yemen etc etc not allowed under your rules again are you starrting a boycot of dahmlercyrstler because of who owns one thrid of them. don't give me this goods crap either. yes or no. becuase last time i checked we aren't partners in this port deal. they own the rights far and square.

We've been over this, asshat. Goods are different than security sensitive operations.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

I do believe this would apply to any foreign Nation that is a security risk!

i don't think we will be ripping up deals with anyone.

 

[Mr. P]

NSCSA=National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia. google and find out what port terminals they control

Had I known in 1997 when they began operations, I would have questioned that also.
Now they should be tossed out on their ear. They are also a risk IMO.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

We've been over this, asshat. Goods are different than security sensitive operations.

bullshit. your logic doesn't hold and you know it. you just said quote:

Partnerships with terrorist supporting nations are not a good idea

yet we are partners with saudi arabia. and goods aren't different. money is money. but maybe you should enlighten yourself before you post and find out what dalhmlercyrystler makes for the military.

 

[dilloduck]

i don't think we will be ripping up deals with anyone.

Agreed---Congress will be so proud of saving the country they will be too busy patting themselves on the back. Anyone seen the language in the bill?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Had I known in 1997 when they began operations, I would have questioned that also.
Now they should be tossed out on their ear. They are also a risk IMO.

woulda coulda shoulda. will we be tossing out the national airline of saudia arabia as well since they run terminals in us airports?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

bullshit. your logic doesn't hold and you know it. you just said quote:

Partnerships with terrorist supporting nations are not a good idea

yet we are partners with saudi arabia. and goods aren't different. money is money. but maybe you should enlighten yourself before you post and find out what dalhmlercyrystler makes for the military.

My logic is dead on. I overstated before. Goods are different. Sorry, charlie.

 

[Annie]

woulda coulda shoulda. will we be tossing out the national airline of saudia arabia as well since they run terminals in us airports?

We allowed Aeroflot in during the Cold War. Apples and Oranges as you would say.

Again, no reason to 'stop' globalisation', I'm in favor of such. Same with outsourcing, which many here disagree with. (especially workingman, who won't be able to respond for awhile.)

That doesn't preclude Congress from responding to just concerns of citizenry concerned with security items.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Sure you can. Then again, we would want to do that why? Most 'informed Americans' are for free trade, but not at the possible expense of security. There are enough 'unknowns' today. Yes, it was different for many of us 9/10/2001.

nothing is going to change. if terrorists want to attack someone they will. it doesn't matter how 'secure' a place is. i give you israel.

 

[dilloduck]

woulda coulda shoulda. will we be tossing out the national airline of saudia arabia as well since they run terminals in us airports?

We might wanna see what Americans are capable and willing of handling on our own before we boot out all foreigners who might betray us.

 

[Mr. P]

bullshit. your logic doesn't hold and you know it. you just said quote:

Partnerships with terrorist supporting nations are not a good idea

yet we are partners with saudi arabia. and goods aren't different. money is money. but maybe you should enlighten yourself before you post and find out what dalhmlercyrystler makes for the military.

Listen close, okay. I said if I had known in 1997, I would have opposed it.
Now toss em out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We might wanna see what Americans are capable and willing of handling on our own before we boot out all foreigners who might betray us.

Not with the ports. Not with terrorist nations. I say we kill the deal hastily, in a mad rush of xenophobia.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

We allowed Aeroflot in during the Cold War. Apples and Oranges as you would say.

Again, no reason to 'stop' globalisation', I'm in favor of such. Same with outsourcing, which many here disagree with. (especially workingman, who won't be able to respond for awhile.)

That doesn't preclude Congress from responding to just concerns of citizenry concerned with security items.

security is an illusion i learned that a long time ago. you can renforce this or only allow this person to run or own that but that didn't stop the london bombings. it didn't stop those nuts in nyc in the 90s from building suicide vests that they never got to use and on and on

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Listen close, okay. I said if I had known in 1997, I would have opposed it.
Now toss em out.

will you be starting your own shipping company to take up the slack?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

will you be starting your own shipping company to take up the slack?

lame.

 

[Annie]

security is an illusion i learned that a long time ago. you can renforce this or only allow this person to run or own that but that didn't stop the london bombings. it didn't stop those nuts in nyc in the 90s from building suicide vests that they never got to use and on and on

I'll go for making it harder, while we tighten up.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

lame.

its the truth. maybe you should look into the last time ther was a problem with the ports and how both imports and exports rotted on the docks and we lost money and people lost their jobs