Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tico, it's quite un-Tico-like for you to for you to take a political stand without the benefit of some logical reason to do so are you sure you have no reason for harboring your doubts?

Sure, O'Bill, I do indeed have a reason for my doubts. Most of the screening of the cargo boxes that enter these ports is done elsewhere. What happens when the boxes get to our ports is they check the manifests, and decide from those whether a box is deserving of further screening. What this tranfer would do is put the responsibility of preparing those manifests in the control of the UAE, an islamist government. Two of the 9/11 terrorists came from the UAE. This is not a foreign company in charge -- it's a foreign government, and an islamic government to boot. Islam, as you recall, is the peaceful religion behind most of the terrorism in the world. That is a reality, and one we need to recognize. If we choose to not be vigilent, and do everything we can to secure our already insecure ports, we are failing in our efforts to secure the safety of this country from possible terrorist attacks, IMO. These are legitimate concerns, and Bush is making a huge mistake if ignores them, and uses this matter to exercise the first veto of his administration.

Can you tell me why it makes sense to allow this to happen, other than diplomacy?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Can you tell me why it makes sense to allow this to happen, other than diplomacy?

For starters, I think there need not be a reason to allow this to happen, rather a reason not to. I've seen no evidence suggesting that UAE control of the P&L constitutes an increased risk in the arriving cargo. In my last post; I outlined the reason I think if they did have any substantive ability to affect the security, they'd be more likely than any other company to affect a change for the better. They'll be more scrutinized than any other, and would be ridiculously simple to demonize should they fail. There is no foreseeable profit in doing so and the losses should they be proven implicit in any terrorist scheme would likely include a forfeiture of the holdings themselves once they were deemed a terrorist entity. There's nothing in the cards there that says threat to me. Then consider that they'll pay for the technological improvements we'll no doubt legislate into law.

Meanwhile, the opportunity to show good will diplomatically is no small consideration. If our quest is honestly to help the Arabs achieve a more civilized atmosphere to live in, what messages do you think we should send?

Essentially, I see no increase in security risk and quite possibly the opposite, while sending the appropriate message to those we mean to befriend. The very real possibility of terrorist activity via our ports doesn't require UAE ownership and if it should happen during their tenure; our options are better than if they remained in British hands. I see no downside whatsoever.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Thank you. Of course I got that much.

Oh, ok. I never get the "I'll pretend I dont get what you're saying" ploy, myself, it's certainly an annoying (and rather pointless) one.

Ticomaya wrote:

Perhaps you are playing stupid by pretending to not understand what I asked?

My question was "what American state owned companies" was he referring to. He answered "Halliburton," which I think was another attempt to be funny.

Since you agree with OE, can you tell me what "American state owned companies" he was talking about?

Ah, OK. Apparently I did, myself, actually misunderstand what you were going at.

I thought that, considering you asked "Huh? What American state owned companies, and what al Qaeda connections?", it was the quip about US state-owned companies being as eligible for distrust re: Al-Qaeda ties, if you imply Woiyo's own logic, as the UAE ones, that you were not getting (or pretending not to get).

But in reality, you were apparently just going for the "US state-owned company" bit, it being a bit of a contradiction in terms.

OK, yeah sure, valid point. It was the ", and what al Qaeda connections?" bit I was explaining to you, however - just in case you hadn't just been pretending incomprehension of that part.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ah, OK. Apparently I did, myself, actually misunderstand what you were going at.

I thought that, considering you asked "Huh? What American state owned companies, and what al Qaeda connections?", it was the quip about US state-owned companies being as eligible for distrust re: Al-Qaeda ties, if you imply Woiyo's own logic, as the UAE ones, that you were not getting (or pretending not to get).

But in reality, you were apparently just going for the "US state-owned company" bit, it being a bit of a contradiction in terms.

OK, yeah sure, valid point. It was the ", and what al Qaeda connections?" bit I was explaining to you, however - just in case you hadn't just been pretending incomprehension of that part.

Uhm... I had to read this three times before I understood it, nimh.

Have to go to bed now....

0 Replies

Thats ok, OE, I assure you you're hardly the first person ever to not understand what the F I'm talking about ... ;-)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Thats ok, OE, I assure you you're hardly the first person ever to not understand what the F I'm talking about ... ;-)

I see we have something in common there. People have told me a lot that they just don't get what I'm trying to say.

On many occasions.

Many languages, too.

Very Happy

0 Replies

Odd, cause I usually understand you fine ... ;-)

0 Replies

No one understands me, too. :wink:
-------------------

It seems that business/regulations/security etc is quite different in the US ports to elsewhere ... at least in Europe: harbour master, customs, border police etc etc are all here national/state etc authorities and not in private hands by the port's owners.

And any private owner from any country has to obey the various laws and regulations here .... that's e.g. one of the points, why Walmart isn't very successful in Germany.

0 Replies

Just sharing...

It doesn't matter what party you are this is absolutely
hilarious.
This comes from a black comedian on a Canadian TV show:

"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest
thing we ever got to having a black man as President. Number 1- He played the sax.
Number 2- He smoked weed.
Number 3-He had his way with ugly white women.

Even now? Look at him... his wife works, and he don't!

And, he gets a check from the government every month.

Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America's shelves this week with "Clinton Soup," in honor of one of the nations' most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.

Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada.

When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied, I don't know, I never had one."

American Indians nicknamed Bill Clinton "Walking Eagle" because he is so full of crap he can't fly.
(Nope, that was his wife)

Clinton lacked only three things to become one of America's finest leaders: integrity, vision, wisdom.

Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe.

The Clinton revised judicial oath: "I solemnly swear to tell
the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."

Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do Hanky Panky between Bushes

0 Replies

Doesn't matter what party you're from? You're so full of it, you squeak. If those things are funny to evreyone, then you should equally appreciate the volumes of humor available to you about the present occupant of the white house. But I don't see that happenin'.

0 Replies

Lighten up and read the thread title. It's probably best that you don't read this thread as it is intended for Bush Supporters... a fact that seems to be missed by many.

0 Replies

Bushisms make me laugh.

Guess it depends on your sense of humor.

0 Replies

Any humor of that type has to have an element of truth. Cruel humor that is obviously intended to show contempt as a political statement is rarely humorous to me no matter who it is leveled at. But humor of the type that say Leno & Letterman use is usually funny.

Take the line: "What do you think of foreign affairs?" Bill Clinton: "I don't know. I never had one" is funny for obvious reasons. Undeniably based on an element of truth and is not mean.

Blatham said the other day that he heard "That President Carter has cancelled his duck hunting trip with Vice President Cheney." This also is based on an element of truth and it was funny.

0 Replies

The Killer Bunnies will get Carter in the end.

0 Replies

The debate rages on re the UAE's leasing the six American ports. From those calling into our local radio morning show today, public opinion seems to be running about 50-50 here.

Some thoughts:
Why do we object to UAE's banking policies while we hold Switzerland to no such standard?

Clinton sold a couple of dozen F-15 fighters to the UAE during his second term in office. He must not have been too bothered by the royal family hobnobbing with OBL.

One of our largest military bases is located at Dubai and that's where we send our warships for servicing and repair when we're working in that part of the world.

The UAE will not own the American ports. They are leasing the facilities under contract that can be revoked at any time if they are caught engaged in suspicious activity.

The UAE has some British ports who have no problem with it.

Considering that containers are packed and shipped to the USA from all over the world by hundreds of different countries and only a fraction of that stuff gets inspected, to assume that risk is highly escalated in a UAE managed port seems a bit paranoid.

Considering that many hundreds of foreign ships from all over the world arrive at American ports every day, to assume that undesirables will more likely step off the boat and disappear at a UAE managed port any more than at any other port also seems a bit paranoid.

Our local conservative afternoon talk show host is opposed to the sale. Our local morning talk show host has no problem with it.

I still have not picked a side but I'm beginnning to lean toward the position that if we are going to allow foreign management of any of our ports, then the UAE deal isn't that big a deal.

0 Replies

A talk show host here had an interesting take on it. While he wouldn't have a problem one way or the other (UAE owning or stopping the transaction) he was wondering why Bush was choosing this issue to start a fight on. The man hasn't vetoed anything for years and now he is picking this??? On the list of priorities it seems like it should be pretty low on the list.

0 Replies

I know, this is not the thread for my comments and about this subject, but just some quick response to those comments, Foxfyre quoted [?] above:

- it's not the UEA but DP World who have bought P & O and by that got those ports,
- DP World runs not only a couple of ports in the UK but some dozen worldwide,
- not only that an US citizen is DPW's chief operating officer - the USNavy has a couple of officers on 24/7 duty in their offices since a couple of years ... ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I know, this is not the thread for my comments and about this subject, but just some quick response to those comments, Foxfyre quoted [?] above:

- it's not the UEA but DP World who have bought P & O and by that got those ports,
- DP World runs not only a couple of ports in the UK but some dozen worldwide,
- not only that an US citizen is DPW's chief operating officer - the USNavy has a couple of officers on 24/7 duty in their offices since a couple of years ... ...

Yes, it is more accurate to say the Dubai emirate government owns DP World. But isn't that a distinction without a difference?

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

A talk show host here had an interesting take on it. While he wouldn't have a problem one way or the other (UAE owning or stopping the transaction) he was wondering why Bush was choosing this issue to start a fight on. The man hasn't vetoed anything for years and now he is picking this??? On the list of priorities it seems like it should be pretty low on the list.

President Bush hasn't vetoed anything at all since he has been president. I don't think he picked this as a fight at all, but this may be the first time that Congress has challenged him on something with very serious and far reaching implications. If so, his duty as President could be to veto it.

I don't know what the international relations fall out will be if we deny this UAE based company rights to manage these ports purely because they are Arabs in the Middle East.

Does anybody?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, it is more accurate to say the Dubai emirate government owns DP World. But isn't that a distinction without a difference?

No not really.

But you still say "Trader Joe's" and not Aldi (and after it is German since nearly 30 years). :wink:

And until now no-one opposed - as far as I know - that Chrysler is 'owned' by Kuweit and Dubai (= {nearly] the majority of shares of Daimler Chrysler AG are owned by Kuweiti and Dubai governmental members).

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know