Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) Any scientific polls done on this with the American public? I would imagine a rating in the low teens for approving this deal to go through. I doubt there's even been time yet...we only learned about the deal at the end of last week...which btw, seems to be before Rumsfeld knew about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 One or more of the following has to be true about this deal: 1. There was some sort of secret, under the table deal to push this through 2. The administration really is that fractured, and this fell through the cracks 3. Bush is yet again defending a decision, even in the face of obvious stupidity 4. There are some big, important pieces of information regarding this deal that we are not aware of (and are likely never to be aware of) My current feeling is 2 and 3. But I could see a combo of 1 and 4 as a possibility as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Just to make sure...you do know that this UAE company is at least partly state controlled? The CEO of that company seems to work directly for the crown prince in that country. Yes this is a state owned operation. I'm well aware of it. The same concern that led to the Chinese bid for UNOCAL not being given approval. If this was a private UAE concern, I wouldn't be so concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Maybe we should have seen this coming. It's as inevitable as a snowstorm in March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 09:47 PM) Maybe we should have seen this coming. It's as inevitable as a snowstorm in March. Un-f***ing-real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 First of all, people that are clamouring about the ownership, the laws of America governs these ports. Americans run them. Security is by the Americans. Port workers are Americans. In other words, virtually nothing will have changed about anything having to do with these ports. However, I do think that there is some kind of back-room deal going on here. I think that this was done to set a "trap"... but the trap just sprung before anyone could use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 "It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House. This is flat out wrong. It's once again politicizing something that doesn't need any more politicizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 what is the big problem here? this is a private commerical deal for the right to manage 6 ports in the US. our customs and coast guard still are there to enforce the law. the company apparently checks out. its outright discrimination to prohibit contracts with middle eastern countries while we have contracts of this sort in all sorts of industries with all sorts of countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 10:12 PM) what is the big problem here? this is a private commerical deal for the right to manage 6 ports in the US. our customs and coast guard still are there to enforce the law. the company apparently checks out. its outright discrimination to prohibit contracts with middle eastern countries while we have contracts of this sort in all sorts of industries with all sorts of countries. The 9/11 commision reported that one of the hijackers was being sponsored by the UAE military while he trained in Germany. Maybe we should have paid the Nazi's to manage our ports back in the 30s and 40s. Heh...'what is the problem here'? I dunno. I guess you're the only one who has an issue with it. Edited February 22, 2006 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) What a joke. The President just handed the Dems the 2006 elections. He went from having national security as a major strength to a complete weakness. Look at all the Republicans who are opposing Bush on this one. Edited February 22, 2006 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Arabs see bigotry I think Bush saw this deal as a goodwill gesture towards the UAE and used a company that some friends knew well to pull it off. Unfortunately it has turned very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 U.S. Company Files Lawsuit Trying to Block Arab Control Over 6 Key Ports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 BTW great discussion on this topic on Scarborough Country right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 There is no way in hell that this makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Out of curiousity, how many companies in the world are in this kind of business anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 09:51 PM) First of all, people that are clamouring about the ownership, the laws of America governs these ports. Americans run them. Security is by the Americans. Port workers are Americans. In other words, virtually nothing will have changed about anything having to do with these ports. However, I do think that there is some kind of back-room deal going on here. I think that this was done to set a "trap"... but the trap just sprung before anyone could use it. Perhaps you missed Balta's Post. Security will, at least in part, be handled by this new company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) Perhaps you missed Balta's Post. Security will, at least in part, be handled by this new company. I think he was referring to who would be doing the ACTUAL work. I doubt they are going to bring in a team from UAE to do the physical inspections and hirings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) I think he was referring to who would be doing the ACTUAL work. I doubt they are going to bring in a team from UAE to do the physical inspections and hirings. Still makes me nervous. Its weird to me. Bush seems to want to make this a matter of fighting bigotry, which is a noble cause. I think there is a lot of hatred for some in this country towards anyone who even looks Middle Eastern, and there is even a feeling that this is a religious war. I can certainly see the value in taking a stand against that. But, that all said, this isn't the right place to make that stand. This is a state-controlled company, from a state that sponsored or at least allowed terrorism, and whose ports have been used for illegal weapons shipments. This isn't about culture, its about safety. And I just can't see a reason to like this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Here's a question for conversation. If we are not willing to racial profile against Arabs getting on planes any more diligently and vigoursly than my 87 year old grandma. Why are we so willing to profile against an entire Arab nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) Here's a question for conversation. If we are not willing to racial profile against Arabs getting on planes any more diligently and vigoursly than my 87 year old grandma. Why are we so willing to profile against an entire Arab nation? Real easy. I wouldn't profile a middle eastern looking person, who I don't know from Adam, purely based on that fact. Aside from it being morally repugnant, its also illogical to profile based on race anyway. Are all Arabs terrorists? Do all Arabs look middle eastern? Are non-Arabs less likely to commit a crime? Are all Arab nations involved in terror? The answers are all "no" to those questions. Therefore, it makes more sense to use other indicators. I am perfectly comfortable expressing concern over THIS PARTICULAR company, whose ports have already been shown to have security holes. And further, if some individual who worked in the UAE for, say, that port, applied for a TSA job, you can bet I'd be OK with putting him/her under intense scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 If this was a private firm, I doubt I'd have an issue. This is a company controlled by a government who helped provide Al-Qaeda funding, produced 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and has been playing both sides of the terror war. We invaded Iraq - at least partially according to the Bush administration - because of a perceived link to terror organizations. The evidence there was flimsy. Dubai supported Terrorism, still does. We let them control our ports. Makes sense to me. Bush is now saying that he didn't know about the decision beforehand and we should have told Congress about it earlier, but I'm still backing it. Makes me wonder if he's just doing this to give GOP Congressional candidates in trouble a way to distance themselves from the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 You both make valid points....but with all due respect...none of that informatoin was available when this story first came out. All people heard was UAE was taking over 6 ports and everyone started screaming NO WAY. I DON'T LIKE THIS. THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. etc etc etc.... Which to me says everyone was doing it based on this being on arab nation...first and foremost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:03 AM) You both make valid points....but with all due respect...none of that informatoin was available when this story first came out. All people heard was UAE was taking over 6 ports and everyone started screaming NO WAY. I DON'T LIKE THIS. THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. etc etc etc.... Which to me says everyone was doing it based on this being on arab nation...first and foremost. For me the issue has always been about the hypocrisy (sp?) of the adminsitration on this issue first and foremost. The nations of the world are "either with us or against us." We used suspected ties to terrorism as partial reason for the Iraq invasion. Now, we're giving a lucrative deal to a company owned and controlled by a government that has provided funding to El Quaida, from a country that some of the 9-11 hijackers travelled throuugh to get to the US, and one of a handful of countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being the others) that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government. How's that for ties to terrorism? I truly don't think the move compromises our security in any way, and a good NPR piece this morning supported this belief. But I'd like aomwone who thinks reservations aboutt this deal are unfounded to square the "with us or against us" rhetoric with the fact that we are giving a company owned by a state with KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations a $6 billion dollar contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) For me the issue has always been about the hypocrisy (sp?) of the adminsitration on this issue first and foremost. The nations of the world are "either with us or against us." We used suspected ties to terrorism as partial reason for the Iraq invasion. Now, we're giving a lucrative deal to a company owned and controlled by a government that has provided funding to El Quaida, from a country that some of the 9-11 hijackers travelled throuugh to get to the US, and one of a handful of countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being the others) that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government. How's that for ties to terrorism? I truly don't think the move compromises our security in any way, and a good NPR piece this morning supported this belief. But I'd like aomwone who thinks reservations aboutt this deal are unfounded to square the "with us or against us" rhetoric with the fact that we are giving a company owned by a state with KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations a $6 billion dollar contract. So why don't we stop buying Saudi oil? Why didn't we two days after 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Come on...even Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson are against this move (an inside to my boring night out on a work trip). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts