Arab control of ports?

The best of the best
Post Reply
User avatar
Uncle Fester
The Man broke me chain
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:58 pm
Location: Abandoned Hamm's Brewery, St. Paul

Post by Uncle Fester »

Bush's track record since 9/11:

* Our borders are not secure.
* Our port security is sporadic at best.
* Immigration has soared with Bush making speeches about amnesty and work cards for illegals.
* We're spending billions and losing lives in Iraq playing referee in what many believe will inevitably become a civil war.
* We're not allowed to profile nervous, young, Arab males at airports because we've got to confiscate toenail clippers from octegenarians.

And now we're turning over operational control of major ports in major cities to a country that is NOT a democracy, whose citizens were actively involved in 9/11?

And this is somehow a good thing according to the mvscals and Jimmy Medallion-types, who blathered on endlessly about Clinton and the Chinese?

Absolutely incredible.

What will it take for some of you idiots to pull your head out of your ass?

How 'bout asking one of your conservative pundits?

Any port in the terrorist storm
Feb 20, 2006
by Cal Thomas ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.

In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.

Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns ... 87197.html
Gunslinger
Sir Slappy Tits
Posts: 2830
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:06 pm

Post by Gunslinger »

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Blah, blah, blah.

So how about gaining some wealth, then?
What's holding you back? Make it happen.
He can't, it was a No Bid contract.
I fucking suck.
User avatar
OCmike
Cursed JFFL Owner
Posts: 3626
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: South Bay

Post by OCmike »

mvscal wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:And now we're turning over operational control of major ports in major cities to a country that is NOT a democracy, whose citizens were actively involved in 9/11?
There are far more radical Islamists in Britain than there are in the UAE.

What part of security is our responsibility are you struggling to comprehend?
Add to that the fact that the "ties" to 9/11 are no more the fault of the UAE than Atta's ties to Germany are the fault of the German gov't. Should we boycott the sale of companies to German companies as well? This is so dumb.
User avatar
Uncle Fester
The Man broke me chain
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:58 pm
Location: Abandoned Hamm's Brewery, St. Paul

Post by Uncle Fester »

Should we boycott the sale of companies to German companies as well?
Would you have turned over control of American ports to the German government in 1941?
What part of security is our responsibility are you struggling to comprehend?
I'm struggling to comprehend how anyone could possibly believe such a move will enhance our security.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Post by Dinsdale »

Uncle Fester wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend how anyone could possibly believe such a move will enhance our security.
Where the hell have you been for the last 5 years?

The Divider wants Arabs controlling the ports.

The Divider's apologists will spin this ten ways from sunday to agree, regardless how fucking stupid and irresopnsible it is, so they can continue their we won" rhetoric.

Maybe somebody should tell the lock-steppers that turning over American shipping ports to foreign countries goes against the status quo, therefore making this a LIBERAL policy -- that should get their knickers in a twist, and possibly make their heads explode.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Jimmy Medalions
Student Body Right
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Jimmy Medalions »

Dinsdale wrote:I would like to see an American company make these profits, rather than a foreign outfit.
You initially whined that it was about jobs. When mvscal handed you your ass on the job issue, you spin-moved into it being about accretion of wealth.

Perhaps you're too fucking stupid to see the difference. I'd buy it.
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
User avatar
Uncle Fester
The Man broke me chain
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:58 pm
Location: Abandoned Hamm's Brewery, St. Paul

Post by Uncle Fester »

We aren't at war with the UAE.
We're cozied up with the dictator/king and there's money at stake. That's as far as it goes.
User avatar
OCmike
Cursed JFFL Owner
Posts: 3626
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: South Bay

Post by OCmike »

mvscal wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
We aren't at war with the UAE.
We're cozied up with the dictator/king and there's money at stake. That's as far as it goes.
So? Is there some requirement that we only do business with our best buddies?

The UAE has already had the opportunity to destroy entire armored divisions worth of equipment. They have already had the opportunity to sabotage our aircraft carriers which routinely berth in Dubai. They host our sailors, soldiers and airmen on RR.

The UAE is about business not jerking Allah's cock.
Which is why this is about labeling every arab country "terrorist" and nothing more. There ARE "good" arabs and western-friendly arabs.
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote:
OK Marty, give mv back his password.
Actually....
...I agree with mv on this. Business is business, and the UAE is all about business. If you think they'd let Koran-shouters within even 5 miles of their facilities, you're out of your mind.

Folks, even before the destruction of Americans, these are the "Arab despots" that
Osama wants to annihilate.
Plus they don't recognize Israel's right to exist, so they must be the good guys.

The question is, why is Israel allowing Bush to do it anyway?


Mystifying.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

Diogenes wrote:Plus they don't recognize Israel's right to exist, so they must be the good guys.

The question is, why is Israel allowing Bush to do it anyway?
:lol: :lol:
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

BTW, this issue was reported last week by a guy named Frank Gaffney.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaffney/060213

The bottom line is that the Bush administration fucked up (politically at least) by not consulting Congress before making the decision. This will end up being posponed for a month or so while they conduct a more exahaustive investigation of this company, and then probably go ahead with it.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Let Bush be stubborn.

Then we can all laugh in the coming months during the campaign for midterms when republicans say they are the part to keep America safe. :lol:
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

If the UAE controls port security, will "Roses Of Mohammed" arrive duty-free?

Image

Mmmmmm.....
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

Diogenes wrote:The bottom line is that the Bush administration fucked up (politically at least) by not consulting Congress before making the decision.
Exactly.

I don't like the fact that deals like this are OK'd by some secret committee to begin with. This isn't some typical Real Estate transaction involving an office building or a fucking strip mall.
This will end up being posponed for a month or so while they conduct a more exahaustive investigation of this company, and then probably go ahead with it.
Maybe. But it's pretty idiotic for Bush to come out yesterday and say he'll veto any measure to delay or stop this sale, then come out today and say he didn't know about it (until very recently). The hole is getting deeper and Scott Mcclellan keeps digging. I'm not sure that this might end up being vetoed and overridden, unless somebody blinks.

So far, it's the administration vs. the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, GOP governors and most of the Dems (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding :meds: ), not to mention some of the conservative talk show hosts and people like Gaffney.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:
OCmike wrote: There ARE "good" arabs and western-friendly arabs.
And then there are necessary Arabs. The UAE is already an important strategic ally which hosts a number of key naval and airbases in the Gulf region, but, if the shit gets truly heated with Iran, then the UAE goes from very important to the most strategically vital patch of dirt on Planet Earth.

Hysterics from emotional, knee jerk morons is not very helpful.
Wasn't that thinking used via Iran, before 1979?

Or are you going to argue that the UAE has no "religious fanatics" who'd like nothing better than to overthrow that government/dictatorship and establish an Islamic state?

They benefit from our protection and intelligence, just as we benefit from their strategic location. That doesn't mean they get to run our ports.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

Right on. RF hits on it here.

Everyone is saying " we need to have arab allies" well, have you noticed how fucked up the general muslim populace is ? they riot over cartoons! they kill people, and destroy buildings, they protest in the tens of thousands OVER CARTOONS!

You want to accept a culture that TOLERATES that shit in one of our most vulnerable security areas.

Sorry but no. We have to protect THIS country. Call me an isolationist, but until they prove they can play nice with the west, cut them out.

Oil won't be leverage forever.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

Mister Bushice wrote:Oil won't be leverage forever.
The day the oil is done is the day that entire region is done, including all of our so-called "allies."

And before mvscal chimes in with a bunch of bullshit of "oil is the way it is" ... not necessarily. Nanotechnology could change everything, dramatically. Not to mention even Bush talking about alternative fuels.

These motherfuckers better bide their time -- the rich elite, the poor masses -- all of them. Actually, what they should do is try to catch up with the 18th century. It isn't looking favorable for them, especially since their leadership insists on schools that sponsor hate, and their "professional businessmen" won't recognize Israel.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Post by PSUFAN »

I know a lot of tards here and elsewhere might disagree...but it's troubling that the President is such a fucking halfwit. He knew nothing about this situation, but his administration was making backhanded deals with the company anyway?

Newsflash...locking the retard outside so he'll have to answer for your stupid policy decisions doesn't a sound Administration make. That's exactly what Cheney and Rove and some others are amidst right now.

Pathetic - and more importantly - traitorous. It's nothing less than traitorous to run the country right into the fucking ground.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

PSUFAN wrote:I know a lot of tards here and elsewhere might disagree...but it's troubling that the President is such a fucking halfwit. He knew nothing about this situation, but his administration was making backhanded deals with the company anyway?
ummmm, no.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_ ... s_security
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
ADVERTISEMENT

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions — described previously by the
Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

RadioFan wrote:
And before mvscal chimes in with a bunch of bullshit of "oil is the way it is" ... not necessarily. Nanotechnology could change everything, dramatically. Not to mention even Bush talking about alternative fuels.
How's the weather in Utopia? I expect this kind of talk from Phibes on Kim Jung Il's North Korea.
RadioFan wrote: ... won't recognize Israel.
Yes. The greatest crime of all time.
:meds: x Resolution 242
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Post by PSUFAN »

Bushy, that's what I'm saying - Bush didn't know, but his admin. was already working out the details.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
Degenerate
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:05 pm
Location: DC

Post by Degenerate »

Diogenes wrote: The bottom line is that the Bush administration fucked up (politically at least) by not consulting Congress before making the decision. This will end up being posponed for a month or so while they conduct a more exahaustive investigation of this company, and then probably go ahead with it.[
After Congress conducts -gasp- Congressional oversight, most of the 535 of them are going to mysteriously reverse their position? Sure. :meds:

This deal is dead, unless you think Frist and Hastert really plan to go campaigning on national security with this albatross hanging around their neck.

Oh, wait, they can campaign on smaller government instead. :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29798
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

Either way this works out in the end, it sure is fun watching the Republican fuckwits beating each other up over it.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: [
Have YOU noticed that none of those riots happened in the UAE?
I think you ought to send this to the Bushites....

this is the justification for this POS deal they've been looking for....
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
Maybe you should take it up with the dumbfuck who tried to use the cartoon riots as a justification for disallowing the deal.
Explain to me how this deal makes the US a safer place to live......remember, it's all about protecting US citizens.....
Then maybe you ought to get the fuck off my ankles, you takeless bitch.
Dry you're eyes mook..... :lol:
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: That isn't purpose of the deal, you retarded fuck.
Calm down meltcal.......

fill in the blank......

"Dubai Port is best qualified to run our ports because ____________.
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
Now it's your turn.

Dubai Ports World is unqualified to run our ports because___________?
I never said they weren't qualified.....

but why would you be willing to put your life into the hands of the UAE, because that's exactly what you're doing. You'll be relying on their security checks to ensure there are no "bad guys" in their employ. Unfortunately, the bad guys don't wear tags that indicate they might be an islamic fundy.

Now save your "the US is in charge of security" argument, because the port security of this country is a fucking joke.....
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
And how, exactly, would that be any different from any other company which does the work?

Personally, I'm more inclined to trust DPW than any British or European corporation. DPW has already proven itself capable of handling high security cargo without incident.
Again, fundamental islamists that work for companies owned by British (or US) tend to stand out. When they work for an Arab owned company, they don't.

Something that has absolutely nothing to do with the company managing some of the shipping terminals. That is a valid concern, but a totally separate issue.
Oh, so operating ports and port security are unrelated eh? :meds:
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Post by PSUFAN »

mvscal wrote:
JewFan wrote:...and their "professional businessmen" won't recognize Israel.
Now we're getting to the bottom line.

Go fuck yourself, kike. And don't try to pretend that you aren't a piece of fucking Jew shit.

If the UAE doesn't recognize Israel, that's Israel's problem not ours.
You're wrong on this one, mvscal. The dude ain't Jewish.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

mvscal wrote:Go fuck yourself, kike. And don't try to pretend that you aren't a piece of fucking Jew shit.

If the UAE doesn't recognize Israel, that's Israel's problem not ours.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice melt.

Real "professional businessmen" you have there. They'll recognize the Taliban, but not Israel. Talk about sucking off ...
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Post by Dinsdale »

Two names --

John Snow, and David Sanborn.

If this isn't par for the Bushies, I don't know what is. This, in an absolutely shocking turn of events, is about political backscratching and feudalism, and has nothing to do with security or efficiency....


:SHOCKER:

Who would have thought that the goons in the White House would do such a thing?
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

PSUFAN wrote:Pathetic - and more importantly - traitorous. It's nothing less than traitorous to run the country right into the fucking ground.
Leave Jimmy Carter out of this.

Even if his stabbing the Shah in the back had such disasterous results...

RadioFan wrote:Wasn't that thinking used via Iran, before 1979?

Or are you going to argue that the UAE has no "religious fanatics" who'd like nothing better than to overthrow that government/dictatorship and establish an Islamic state?
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

Degenerate wrote:
Diogenes wrote: The bottom line is that the Bush administration fucked up (politically at least) by not consulting Congress before making the decision. This will end up being posponed for a month or so while they conduct a more exahaustive investigation of this company, and then probably go ahead with it.
After Congress conducts -gasp- Congressional oversight, most of the 535 of them are going to mysteriously reverse their position? Sure. :meds:

This deal is dead, unless you think Frist and Hastert really plan to go campaigning on national security with this albatross hanging around their neck.
After they hold hearings to investigate the background of the company in question and verify that they will not be controlling port security, it becomes a non-issue.

The Dems will try making it one, but them running on national security concerns should be trully comical.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Post by Diego in Seattle »

I'm betting that a phone call to the UAE would get your phone tapped, but the Bush administration has no problem with them controlling our ports. :lol:
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Jimmy Medalions
Student Body Right
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Jimmy Medalions »

Diego in Seattle wrote:I'm betting
This is commonplace every time you open your pole holster.

The big people are talking, go away.
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:I'm betting that a phone call to the UAE would get your phone tapped...
They don't have much of a market in underaged boys there, so why would you bother calling?
FTFY.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:I'm betting
This is commonplace every time you open your pole holster.

The big people are talking, go away.
The only group of "big people" you qualify for are those of people with oversized egos.

Diogenes going to the red herring card yet again when smacked with the truth. :lol:
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:but why would you be willing to put your life into the hands of the UAE, because that's exactly what you're doing. You'll be relying on their security checks to ensure there are no "bad guys" in their employ.
And how, exactly, would that be any different from any other company which does the work?

Personally, I'm more inclined to trust DPW than any British or European corporation. DPW has already proven itself capable of handling high security cargo without incident.
because the port security of this country is a fucking joke.....
Something that has absolutely nothing to do with the company managing some of the shipping terminals. That is a valid concern, but a totally separate issue.
Well It's getting reviewed by congress anyway, so whatever you may think about the security issue, it won't do any harm to make sure all the i's are dotted.
User avatar
Jimmy Medalions
Student Body Right
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Jimmy Medalions »

Diego in Seattle wrote:Diogenes going to the red herring card yet again when smacked with the truth. :lol:
Guess again, dipshit. 'Betting' and the 'truth' aren't the same thing. A broken clock is right more times in the day than you are.

Take your uninformed, uneducated and perpetually-pedestrian class labia with you on the way out.
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

can we leave the personal insults out of this and stay on topic?

Thanks
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Post Reply