Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Thanks, I live for abuse.

i know a couple of girls you might enjoy meeting... high dollar but very skilled....

And you're going to give them to CJ ... BIIICH!!

Anon

0 Replies

This is so awesome. Here, in this thread, we have people who supported the war in Iraq based partly on Saddam Hussien's imaginary "terrorist connections" trying to tell us that it's okay to sell our ports to a company run by a nation whos leaders actually had meetings with Bin Laden himself.

Hahahahahahaha.

How can so many people be this dumb?

0 Replies

Quote:

General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2671

From an LATimes story on 11/8/01

0 Replies

If in fact this company does have ties to terrorist and OBL, then of course, we shouldn't use them. I just thought the only real objection was that the company happened to be an Arabic company and in that case it would wrong to object to them only on that fact alone.

My question is why the British would sell the ports to them and why Bush would accept it in the first place if they did have ties to terrorist?

0 Replies

I'm quite happy to notice that the formerly small group of anti-globalisationers is now growing and growing, even in the USA.

Blood is thicker than water.

0 Replies

Walter, I don't quite understand why you would say that those who question the wisdom of allowing a company with ties to terrorist having control to US ports of being anti-global. (if in fact they do have ties to terrorist)

Speaking for myself, if it is true the company has ties to terrorist, that would be my only objection to the company having control of our ports.

0 Replies

Actually, this company has bought the business from another company - the ports have been in foreign hands before for quite some time.

Okay,, so it is no issue of globalism.

The company has issues to terrorism?
How could the acting CEO (an American citizen, btw) than visit the USA this week .... and stay free?

Dubai Port World owns the (former) US CSX since more than two years.

No-one protested than.

Does this mean, they are even more terroristic than before?

Are the 30 terminals which Dubai Port World owns in 18 countries (they've one in Germany) means a great danger for those countries?

0 Replies

Walter,

Unfortunately the administration has played the 9/11 terrorist card too many times here. Even the slightest link has been heavily promoted as a link. (See the claims about Saddam and ties to Al Qaeda.) There is more evidence of the UAE having ties to OBL than Saddam ever did. The administration did this to themselves. They created an atmosphere where we can easily accuse without evidence. Now they want us to ignore the slight links as if they didn't exist.

Bush opened pandora's box with his "terrorist" cry at the slightest inclination. Everything is about the security of the homeland. All dissension is aiding the terrorists.

How far can we, the US, really be from a charismatic leader that will tell us we need to save the world from the evil muslims? The homeland is all! We have a duty to the homeland. Anyone that doesn't follow is a traitor!

0 Replies

parados wrote:

How far can we, the US, really be from a charismatic leader that will tell us we need to save the world from the evil muslims? The homeland is all! We have a duty to the homeland. Anyone that doesn't follow is a traitor!

Usually 4 years as that is when presedential elections are held.

0 Replies

Most of this stuff is over my head, I have never heard of "US CSX" before or even know what it is. But if they do own these things, then it does seem a little weird we are kicking up a fuss if they own more US stuff.

Like I said, in general I have no objection to the Arab company owning these ports. If they do have ties to terrorism, it seems to me that it should be proven before objecting to them.

0 Replies

Dubia Port International acquired CSX Coprporation's International Terminal Business in 2004/2005.

0 Replies

revel -

US CSX is a company that owned transportation services. The Dubai company bought them up or bought part of them. I don't recall. It was all part of normal transactions between multinational companies. They buy and sell each other and parts of each other.

The problem with multinational companies or companies in general is they don't have a vested interest in national security. Their only goal is to make a profit, the least amount of services at the highest possible price. Without oversight no company will be a good choice to control our ports. With oversight and checkable standards any company can do it.

We are dealing with 2 competing interests here.
The goal of any company that runs a port is to get as many goods through the port as quickly as possible.
The goal of security is to check every item that goes through the port.

Foreign company executives don't have the same accountability if something does go wrong. They are outside the US and can evade prosecution unlike US executives. But they have a reverse incentive too, they have to be more careful because they are more likely to be scrutinized. Profit requires continued operation.

0 Replies

If it is a security risk for the company to own ports, why would it not be a security risk for the company to own or partly own railroads?

Also, before the Arab company bought the US ports it was owned by a British company, would they not have the same interest of getting goods out as quickly as possible?

Your right though about the turn about from the administration on this whole deal.

In any event, it seems it is being put on hold for awhile so that the President can make the case to congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060224/ts_nm/security_ports_dc

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday welcomed "a slight delay" of the contested deal for a state-owned Arab company to operate terminals at six U.S. ports but said it should still proceed.

0 Replies

Ports allow things to enter the country. That is different from transporting things already here.

I don't see much of a problem as long as there are safeguards to confirm that any company complies with security and customs. That requires oversight outside the company.

Part of the problem here is that it sounds like the law requires Congress to sign off on any such sale. The Bush administration failed to comply with the law by notifying Congress. (Sounds a lot like some other things the failed to inform Congress about.)

0 Replies

revel wrote:

If it is a security risk for the company to own ports, why would it not be a security risk for the company to own or partly own railroads?

Also, before the Arab company bought the US ports it was owned by a British company, would they not have the same interest of getting goods out as quickly as possible?

Your right though about the turn about from the administration on this whole deal.

In any event, it seems it is being put on hold for awhile so that the President can make the case to congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060224/ts_nm/security_ports_dc

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday welcomed "a slight delay" of the contested deal for a state-owned Arab company to operate terminals at six U.S. ports but said it should still proceed.

One more time: Our own government has stated repeatedly that the UAE leadership has links to terrorism. They have met personally with Bin Laden. In fact, Clinton had to cancel a missle attack against Bin Laden once because he was meeting with the UAE Royal Family at the time. Moreover, the UAE was one of the Taliban's biggest supporters, and one of only three countries to recognize them as legitimate leaders. Charities in the UAE continue to be - along with Saudi Arabia - the biggest funder of madrasas in Pakistan. The company which is planning to take over the ports is a state run company run by this government. You supported war against Hussien based on his non-existent connections to terrororism, but you're okay with selling our ports to a country whos leaders met with Bin Laden personally on several occasions? That's INSANE.

Are we all on the same page now? The opposition to the UAE ports deal has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the fact that the UAE government symptathizes with terrorists and fundamentalists.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ports allow things to enter the country. That is different from transporting things already here.

I don't see much of a problem as long as there are safeguards to confirm that any company complies with security and customs. That requires oversight outside the company.

Part of the problem here is that it sounds like the law requires Congress to sign off on any such sale. The Bush administration failed to comply with the law by notifying Congress. (Sounds a lot like some other things the failed to inform Congress about.)

Well, in that case maybe Arab airlines should be prevented from flying into the US. Who knows what's on board? Could be a nuke, couldn't it?

Hey, have a look!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

parados wrote:
Ports allow things to enter the country. That is different from transporting things already here.

I don't see much of a problem as long as there are safeguards to confirm that any company complies with security and customs. That requires oversight outside the company.

Part of the problem here is that it sounds like the law requires Congress to sign off on any such sale. The Bush administration failed to comply with the law by notifying Congress. (Sounds a lot like some other things the failed to inform Congress about.)

Well, in that case maybe Arab airlines should be prevented from flying into the US. Who knows what's on board? Could be a nuke, couldn't it?

Hey, have a look!

Dumb analogy. Here's a better one: transport airlines owned by nations whos leaders have met with Osama Bin Laden should be restricted from buying American airports.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ports allow things to enter the country. That is different from transporting things already here.

old europe wrote:

Well, in that case maybe Arab airlines should be prevented from flying into the US.

IronLionZion wrote:

Dumb analogy. Here's a better one: transport airlines owned by nations whos leaders have met with Osama Bin Laden should be restricted from buying American airports.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

parados wrote:
Ports allow things to enter the country. That is different from transporting things already here.

I don't see much of a problem as long as there are safeguards to confirm that any company complies with security and customs. That requires oversight outside the company.

Part of the problem here is that it sounds like the law requires Congress to sign off on any such sale. The Bush administration failed to comply with the law by notifying Congress. (Sounds a lot like some other things the failed to inform Congress about.)

Well, in that case maybe Arab airlines should be prevented from flying into the US. Who knows what's on board? Could be a nuke, couldn't it?

Hey, have a look!

There are safeguards in place for airlines flying into the US. US customs and security at the foreign airports do that.

People and imported items on international flights are treated differently from domestic flights in the US. Domestic freight is treated differently from imported freight, whether it is air, sea or land.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

This is so awesome. Here, in this thread, we have people who supported the war in Iraq based partly on Saddam Hussien's imaginary "terrorist connections" trying to tell us that it's okay to sell our ports to a company run by a nation whos leaders actually had meetings with Bin Laden himself.

Hahahahahahaha.

How can so many people be this dumb?

I don't feel you should tar all people of a country or race because of what a few of them did. Here is an interesting interview with Sen. Charles Schumer that played on NPR a couple of days ago. It is interesting how he basically states that no matter how well vetted, how respected, how professional this company is, he wouldn't give them the contract. (He leaves himself a little wiggle room at the end.) What it comes down to is "they are Arab, therefore they can't work with the US because of terrorism." Anytime you say (as cj did in an earlier post) that a "white" company should handle a contract because they are white, you have to notice the stink that surrounds the comment and step back a little.

0 Replies

Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know