So lets get this straight

[Mr. P]

same with the port terminals which is my point. :


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5228775

Q: Will the transfer of ownership change who is working at these six ports?

The dock workers will remain the same, and there will be very little change in management, ....

And there is the risk..there will be change. Will it be secure? I'm not willing to risk it if the UAE is making the changes. Sorry.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Not if Congress is activated, which it may or may not be. I KNOW it doesn't WANT to be.

i don't think they'll be repealing any free trade agreements anytime soon

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

And there is the risk..there will be change. Will it be secure? I'm not willing to risk it if the UAE is making the changes. Sorry.

they can't fire the coast guard or the port authorities that are running the whole ports or change US security laws.

 

[Annie]

i don't think they'll be repealing any free trade agreements anytime soon

They will be regarding security sites, if the electorate wants them to. Ask GW about Dubai.

It's 'the people' that hold the power, they just fail to recognize it most of the time.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

They will be regarding security sites, if the electorate wants them to. Ask GW about Dubai.

It's 'the people' that hold the power, they just fail to recognize it most of the time.

and bush is sticking to his guns as he should. yet in two weeks time something else will come up and everyone will forget about this "outragous" deal

 

[dilloduck]

They will be regarding security sites, if the electorate wants them to. Ask GW about Dubai.

It's 'the people' that hold the power, they just fail to recognize it most of the time.

Which is really a pretty scary thing considering how uninformed most of them are.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

lets get real and honest here the only reason any of this is an issue is because its an election year and bush's poll numbers are low . plain and simple

 

[Mr. P]

they can't fire the coast guard or the port authorities that are running the whole ports or change US security laws.

No they can't. So tell me how are things smuggled, contacts right?
So, change a few here, a few there and bingo! On the surface this is a business deal, brush away all the political BS and it IS a security issue.

 

[Annie]

lets get real and honest here the only reason any of this is an issue is because its an election year and bush's poll numbers are low . plain and simple

I seriously disagree. I think the administration made a serious blunder, not the first. It brought 'all the foreign control' of ports to the attention of many that would not have known, because the MSM wasn't covering. They did cover the Dubai case, to hurt Bush. On the other hand, some 'not so simple folk' recognize the problems in a wider sense. I DO NOT want China or Singapore in the West coast ports. I would not want them in security for water treatments either.

I do NOT want Dubai owned plants making parts for US aircraft or missiles. Ect. Hasn't to do with allies, has to do with security.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

No they can't. So tell me how are things smuggled, contacts right?
So, change a few here, a few there and bingo! On the surface this is a business deal, brush away all the political BS and it IS a security issue.

then shouldn't you get rid of corruption then? so i guess you were screaming bloody murder over NSCSA and what ports they control right? or do you not know about that?

 

[Mr. P]

then shouldn't you get rid of corruption then? so i guess you were screaming bloody murder over NSCSA and what ports they control right? or do you not know about that?

A matter of trust an common sense man. The Brits did not and do not support terrorist, the UAE does.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

I seriously disagree. I think the administration made a serious blunder, not the first. It brought 'all the foreign control' of ports to the attention of many that would not have known, because the MSM wasn't covering. They did cover the Dubai case, to hurt Bush. On the other hand, some 'not so simple folk' recognize the problems in a wider sense. I DO NOT want China or Singapore in the West coast ports. I would not want them in security for water treatments either.

I do NOT want Dubai owned plants making parts for US aircraft or missiles. Ect. Hasn't to do with allies, has to do with security.

first off bush has nothing to do with who owns what. its an independent review. the pres doesn't give the ups and downs over who owns what. unless you want this country to nationalize everything nothing is going to change.zip. we aren't going to turn the clock back 50 years. its not going to happen. you would have to undo trillions of dollars in deals.not going to happen. you can say any compayny is a scurity issue. everything from del monte to dell. are we going to ban imports of food because they might be poison? no.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

A matter of trust an common sense man. The Brits did not and do not support terrorist, the UAE does.

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

 

[Annie]

first off bush has nothing to do with who owns what. its an independent review. the pres doesn't give the ups and downs over who owns what. unless you want this country to nationalize everything nothing is going to change.zip. we aren't going to turn the clock back 50 years. its not going to happen. you would have to undo trillions of dollars in deals.not going to happen. you can say any compayny is a scurity issue. everything from del monte to dell. are we going to ban imports of food because they might be poison? no.

It's not 50 years, not even 20 years. It will change, if the people want it to. Security concerns are not 1% of the available areas here to invest in. Give it a rest.

 

[archangel]

House panel votes to block Ports Deal 62-2

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/8/181056.shtml

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

It's not 50 years, not even 20 years. It will change, if the people want it to. Security concerns are not 1% of the available areas here to invest in. Give it a rest.

go out into the real world. with what your arguing we would turn back the clock decades literally. i can make the case that any company is vital to national security and should have any investments by anyone. but guess what? partnerships are what allow these companies to grow and employ people. it allows inovation and in the end makes this country safer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

House panel votes to block Ports Deal 62-2

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/8/181056.shtml

:clap1:

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

House panel votes to block Ports Deal 62-2

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/8/181056.shtml

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

go out into the real world. with what your arguing we would turn back the clock decades literally. i can make the case that any company is vital to national security and should have any investments by anyone. but guess what? partnerships are what allow these companies to grow and employ people. it allows inovation and in the end makes this country safer.

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

 

[Annie]

go out into the real world. with what your arguing we would turn back the clock decades literally. i can make the case that any company is vital to national security and should have any investments by anyone. but guess what? partnerships are what allow these companies to grow and employ people. it allows inovation and in the end makes this country safer.

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.