boinky 0 #1 February 22, 2006 QuoteWASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement. I know that this subject has been broached slightly, but then it went off into a Bush bashing session. I'm not going to bash Bush, but I'm just curious to hear what everyone's thoughts are on it. I'm personally rather shocked by it. I'm not overly political and will not get into an argument with anyone over their opinion. An opinion is just that....a individual opinion and we're all entitled to them without abuse. So...let the opinions begin and please play nice y'all. Nina Are we called "DAWGs" because we stick our noses up people's butts? (RIP Buzz) Yep, you're a postwhore-billyvance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinfarmer 0 #2 February 22, 2006 Why can't Americans run there own ports? Are we to dumb? Lazy? I don't think any foreign country should be aloud to run a port or any other type of operation in the US. Maybe I'm just to dumb but why can't we run our own country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #3 February 22, 2006 QuoteWhy can't Americans run there own ports? Are we to dumb? Lazy? I don't think any foreign country should be aloud to run a port or any other type of operation in the US. Maybe I'm just to dumb but why can't we run our own country. This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #4 February 22, 2006 How does the analogy go ? Putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse ? Somehow, asking foreign nationals to be in charge of port security is... dumb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #5 February 22, 2006 The United States is for sale to the highest bidder. To much of this country is owned by other countries. One of these days they are going to hit us with an eviction notice. America should be owned by Americans and Americans only."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boinky 0 #6 February 22, 2006 Sadly, I am afraid you are right. But is there any going back now? Perhaps if we can't back up, at least we could stop the forward motion? Nina Are we called "DAWGs" because we stick our noses up people's butts? (RIP Buzz) Yep, you're a postwhore-billyvance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #7 February 22, 2006 Anyone know why the Brits don't want them anymore?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 February 22, 2006 QuoteWhy can't Americans run there own ports? With the current deficits..... America is for sale to the highest bidder.... With the Bush family ties to the Middle East... I am sure there are a few markers being called in on this deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 February 22, 2006 <> That's an interesting view of globalisation.. So maybe all American companies should move out of other countries and go home? or does it only work one way? . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #10 February 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy can't Americans run there own ports? Are we to dumb? Lazy? I don't think any foreign country should be aloud to run a port or any other type of operation in the US. Maybe I'm just to dumb but why can't we run our own country. What's that reply for? Are you peeved at the spelling mistakes but don't want to be flamed as a spelling-flamer? Or do you have something to say about his premise? Or are you just having trouble articulating? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #11 February 22, 2006 I think it is very interesting to see that out of all legislative cases, this is the first and only one in which Bush has threatened to use his Veto power. Which leads me to believe that he has a lot riding on ensuring these ports get in the hands of the UAE. The Bush family has some very strong ties to the middle east. I suggest you follow the money. I would think the BUsh family directly, or indirectly stands to make a lot of money Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 February 22, 2006 QuoteHow does the analogy go ? Putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse ? Somehow, asking foreign nationals to be in charge of port security is... dumb. Nobody is putting foreign nationals in charge of port security. That's just the spin put out by the opposition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #13 February 22, 2006 Very frightenning! It was one thing when Britain was running it as I presume they have gotten over that whole 1812 thing, but letting an Arabic country control the flow of materials into the US is utter foolishness. I am not against globalism as there are strong economic arguments for it but the safety of US citizens has to be factored in. Caution is being thrown to the wind. Richards My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 February 22, 2006 Quote<> That's an interesting view of globalisation.. So maybe all American companies should move out of other countries and go home? or does it only work one way? . Spot on. Isn't it interesting how the same people who tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists and that our fear of them is something ginned up by the Bush Admin. are the same ones who are now afraid to turn over the management of a few US ports to a company from a Muslim country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #15 February 22, 2006 >I'm personally rather shocked by it. Bush supports it, and therefore most republicans will. Now, if it had been a French company, we'd be hearing how the end of the world is approaching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #16 February 22, 2006 It's politically stupid and myopic, the same way nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was politically stupid and myopic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 February 22, 2006 Quote>I'm personally rather shocked by it. Bush supports it, and therefore most republicans will. That's just an incorrect statement wallowing in stereotype, have you read the news on this? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 February 22, 2006 Quote>I'm personally rather shocked by it. Bush supports it, and therefore most republicans will. Now, if it had been a French company, we'd be hearing how the end of the world is approaching. Explain to me exactly how it's a bad idea, keeping your answer in line with your "not all muslims are terrorists mantra." You do realize this is just a management contract and has nothing to do with security don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 February 22, 2006 QuoteQuote>I'm personally rather shocked by it. Bush supports it, and therefore most republicans will. That's just an incorrect statement wallowing in stereotype, have you read the news on this? Not saying it is, but it's possible this is a political strategy that allows Rep. to oppose an unpopular lame duck President in order to create distance for the upcoming elections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 February 22, 2006 QuoteNot saying it is, but it's possible this is a political strategy that allows Rep. to oppose an unpopular lame duck President in order to create distance for the upcoming elections. I'd believe that. I think the only conspiracies that really exist are about incumbents maintaining their positions and that the Dems and Reps (when the parties are equally balanced) will cooperate to hold on to their positions. But if the parties get out of balance, that's when the party in charge takes advantage of the situation. In otherwords, I really doubt the sincerity of ANYONE in a national position, neither party has the moral high ground, even a moral swamp to start with. Anyone sincere just wouldn't last long. I also don't think we are really out of balance right now. It's just the Reps turn. The Dems will get their next decade soon either very next cycle (dem pres and then a gradual shift in congress) or following a half cycle (one term rep pres - either way congress should drift back to 50/50, we just have to see who is sacrificed on the Rep side in addition to retirees). If the next time around we see a fringe element panderer from the DNC again, then we'll know I'm wrong and the reps will get even more out of hand. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boinky 0 #21 February 22, 2006 This was news on AOL this morning. I personally say bullshit. First there's wiretaps that the government supposedly didn't know about...now there's a proposed port sale that the President supposedly didn't know about. If these stories really [B]COULD be believed (which I am personally not buying), then there sure is a lot of non-communication going on in Washington. And these non-communicating people are running our country? QuoteWhite House Says Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal Citing National Security, Lawmakers Brush Aside Veto Threat By TED BRIDIS, AP WASHINGTON (Feb. 22) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.Nina Are we called "DAWGs" because we stick our noses up people's butts? (RIP Buzz) Yep, you're a postwhore-billyvance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 February 22, 2006 As I said in the other thread - Port operations != customs/security inspections. I do find it amusing how the same people that were screaming about Bechtel and others not getting the base support contracts are now screaming about a non-US company getting this one... As for the people muttering about payoffs... show me the money. If you've got proof, trot it out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #23 February 22, 2006 everyone is missing the point! the company that ran the ports was british owned... they sold their company to the UAE... now we have to take action against that... people need to read actually instead of opining beforehand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #24 February 22, 2006 QuoteThat's an interesting view of globalisation.. So maybe all American companies should move out of other countries and go home? or does it only work one way? No problem with businesses doing business within other countries, but selling off the land to foriegn interest... something just does not seem right with that. There is a sale tag on everything in the US. A number of countries do not allow outside interest to own the property they establish factories and office space on. It should be that way here in the US. I am sure that the UAE most likely holds the deeds on a large number of property in the US. Does any Americans own property in Arabia or is it only held in trust like in Mexico."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boinky 0 #25 February 22, 2006 QuoteBush supports it, and therefore most republicans will. Maybe not. QuoteDefending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats. Quote"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. QuoteBush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.Nina Are we called "DAWGs" because we stick our noses up people's butts? (RIP Buzz) Yep, you're a postwhore-billyvance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
