Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/22/2006 4:22:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:10:33 PM EDT
This is all political b.s. The ports own the port...dirt, cranes, trans-tainers, docks, rail lines, HUGE container parking lots, etc. A steamship company with a contract to dock their ships and off/on load containers, docks and container cranes straddle the ship and take containers off the ship and place them on 20' or 40' tractor trailers driven by stevadors (sp). The driver pulls the container to a specific parking area assigned by a traffic controller, where a large 4 wheel crane called a trans-tainer pulls the container off the truck bed. The driver loops back to the ship to move another container. The trans-tainer stacks the container in a storage area, directed by the port authority.
The issue is this...the stevadors are not employees of the port authority. It is a private company under contract with the port authority. The stevador companies currently working those ports, have sold there contracts to the foreign operators. It is strictly a money transfer. The same stevadors (drivers) that have been working the ports continue to work there, similiar to a stock purchase. They are not involved in security or any other operations. The port authority still owns the port, provides their own security...real cops mostly retired DPS, city, or feds (FBI, ATF). Customs, immigration, border patrol, coast guard are always around.
All of this b.s. could have been avoided if the Bush people had handled it the right way. Dems and republicans are well aware of what is going on, but are posturing to use this issue of Homeland Security in up coming elections. The ONLY bad issue here is that our elected officials are lying (mouth moving) about the issue in order to get re-elected.
All of this has been about truck drivers that drive in a circle moving containers.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:14:06 PM EDT
FUCKING SELL-OUT!!!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:17:55 PM EDT
Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, you fucking cocksucking backstabbing whore!


White House: Port deal should have gone to Congress earlier

UAE firm hires Dole to lobby amid bipartisan concern about takeover


Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Posted: 7:46 p.m. EST (00:46 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Wednesday that critics of a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates company manage six U.S. seaports are "misinformed," but conceded it should have consulted Congress earlier.

The administration's blessing of the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which currently runs those ports, by the state-owned Dubai Ports World has sparked a firestorm of opposition on Capitol Hill.

President Bush has defended the deal and threatened to use the first veto of his presidency on any congressional attempt to block it.

A federal committee that oversees international investment approved the deal, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated Bush's reassurances that the security of those ports would remain in the hands of the U.S. government.

"If this transaction were blocked, it would not change security at our ports one iota," McClellan said.

But he conceded, "We feel like Congress probably should have been briefed on this matter sooner, particularly in light of some of the false impressions that have been left in the minds of members of Congress."

P&O, a British-based company, for several years has run commercial operations at the ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana. (See where the ports are).

But its purchase by an entity owned by the United Arab Emirates has raised security concerns among members of Congress from both parties. (Watch a company official defend the deal -- 7:39)

Critics of the deal note that two of the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks came from the UAE, and the hijackers drew funds from bank accounts there. In addition, Dubai was a key transfer point for the illicit nuclear technology sales led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The International Longshoremen's Association, which represents dockworkers at the affected ports, Wednesday joined calls to hold up the deal for further review. The union's president, John Bowers, said the group views the agreement "with great concern."

"We cannot adequately urge the administration to promptly reconsider its position on this inexplicable development and, at the very least, to revisit its consideration with open discussion and debate," Bowers said in a written statement. "The implications are simply too important and far-reaching to leave to the surreptitious disposition of an unaccountable panel."

The Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of several Cabinet agencies and the National Security Council, approved the purchase in January.

McClellan said the president only "became aware of it over the last several days." He said every Cabinet member whose agencies participated in the review process then told the president they had no concerns about the deal.

And he said the emirates are "a strong ally and partner in the global war on terrorism ... someone we have worked very carefully with to crack down on terrorist financing. They work very closely with us in sharing important intelligence."
Concern in Congress

But the White House faced an outpouring of bipartisan opposition to the transaction, which is scheduled to close March 2.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, both Republicans, urged the administration to place the agreement on hold until Congress could scrutinize it.

Frist said he would support a bill to delay the agreement unless the administration allows further investigation of the arrangement, a statement that helped trigger Bush's veto threat.

Hastert said he is "concerned about the national security implications that this could have for the safety of the American people."

Across the aisle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, called for hearings and accused the administration of approving the port agreement "in secret."

Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Hillary Clinton of New York, have introduced a bill that would block the sale of U.S. port operations to other governments.

U.S. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, already introduced a bill to put the deal on hold. (Watch how both parties are teaming up against Bush -- 1:14)

A delegation from the UAE is in Washington to lobby for the deal, and the company has hired former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to assist them. Dole was the Republican presidential candidate in 1996 and his wife, Elizabeth, is a senator from North Carolina.

"We will continue to work with the U.S. government in maintaining the highest standards of security at U.S. ports and will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals," Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, said Tuesday.

Bush accused critics of the deal of applying a double standard to an Arab company when no security concerns were raised about P&O.

Reem Al-Hashimy, the UAE's commercial attache in Washington, told CNN Tuesday that her country is not offended by the controversy and said it respects the democratic process at work in the United States.

But she said the outcry was unexpected, because the UAE's cooperation with U.S. antiterrorist efforts dates to before the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.

Foreign-owned companies operate many ports in the United States. In Los Angeles, California, companies from China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan lease operations.

Administration officials are scheduled to discuss the sale Thursday with the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the committee's chairman, Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:28:32 PM EDT
Interesting that Dubai is one of 35 ports, 9 ports currently operated by DPW, that allow US Customs to inspect containers BEFORE they are loaded on ships. Obviously this privilege is granted by the soveriegn government who actually owns the port, but I find it very interesting that Dubai was one of the first, if not THE first.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:50:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 5:53:06 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]

Originally Posted By C-4:
Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, you fucking cocksucking backstabbing whore!


White House: Port deal should have gone to Congress earlier

UAE firm hires Dole to lobby amid bipartisan concern about takeover


Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Posted: 7:46 p.m. EST (00:46 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Wednesday that critics of a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates company manage six U.S. seaports are "misinformed," but conceded it should have consulted Congress earlier.

The administration's blessing of the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which currently runs those ports, by the state-owned Dubai Ports World has sparked a firestorm of opposition on Capitol Hill.

President Bush has defended the deal and threatened to use the first veto of his presidency on any congressional attempt to block it.

A federal committee that oversees international investment approved the deal, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated Bush's reassurances that the security of those ports would remain in the hands of the U.S. government.

"If this transaction were blocked, it would not change security at our ports one iota," McClellan said.

But he conceded, "We feel like Congress probably should have been briefed on this matter sooner, particularly in light of some of the false impressions that have been left in the minds of members of Congress."

P&O, a British-based company, for several years has run commercial operations at the ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana. (See where the ports are).

But its purchase by an entity owned by the United Arab Emirates has raised security concerns among members of Congress from both parties. (Watch a company official defend the deal -- 7:39)

Critics of the deal note that two of the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks came from the UAE, and the hijackers drew funds from bank accounts there. In addition, Dubai was a key transfer point for the illicit nuclear technology sales led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The International Longshoremen's Association, which represents dockworkers at the affected ports, Wednesday joined calls to hold up the deal for further review. The union's president, John Bowers, said the group views the agreement "with great concern."

"We cannot adequately urge the administration to promptly reconsider its position on this inexplicable development and, at the very least, to revisit its consideration with open discussion and debate," Bowers said in a written statement. "The implications are simply too important and far-reaching to leave to the surreptitious disposition of an unaccountable panel."

The Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of several Cabinet agencies and the National Security Council, approved the purchase in January.

McClellan said the president only "became aware of it over the last several days." He said every Cabinet member whose agencies participated in the review process then told the president they had no concerns about the deal.

And he said the emirates are "a strong ally and partner in the global war on terrorism ... someone we have worked very carefully with to crack down on terrorist financing. They work very closely with us in sharing important intelligence."
Concern in Congress

But the White House faced an outpouring of bipartisan opposition to the transaction, which is scheduled to close March 2.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, both Republicans, urged the administration to place the agreement on hold until Congress could scrutinize it.

Frist said he would support a bill to delay the agreement unless the administration allows further investigation of the arrangement, a statement that helped trigger Bush's veto threat.

Hastert said he is "concerned about the national security implications that this could have for the safety of the American people."

Across the aisle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, called for hearings and accused the administration of approving the port agreement "in secret."

Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Hillary Clinton of New York, have introduced a bill that would block the sale of U.S. port operations to other governments.

U.S. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, already introduced a bill to put the deal on hold. (Watch how both parties are teaming up against Bush -- 1:14)

A delegation from the UAE is in Washington to lobby for the deal, and the company has hired former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to assist them. Dole was the Republican presidential candidate in 1996 and his wife, Elizabeth, is a senator from North Carolina.

"We will continue to work with the U.S. government in maintaining the highest standards of security at U.S. ports and will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals," Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, said Tuesday.

Bush accused critics of the deal of applying a double standard to an Arab company when no security concerns were raised about P&O.

Reem Al-Hashimy, the UAE's commercial attache in Washington, told CNN Tuesday that her country is not offended by the controversy and said it respects the democratic process at work in the United States.

But she said the outcry was unexpected, because the UAE's cooperation with U.S. antiterrorist efforts dates to before the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.

Foreign-owned companies operate many ports in the United States. In Los Angeles, California, companies from China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan lease operations.

Administration officials are scheduled to discuss the sale Thursday with the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the committee's chairman, Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican.




Pipe down. The UAE isn't an enemy of this nation, & keeping good relations w/ friendly Middle Eastern nations (such as the UAE, Jordan, etc) goes a long way in promoting those good relations, trust, respect, etc. We need more Middle East allies & fewer enemies. Blame our waning control of ports.

Keep in mind, there are fewer US-flagged cargo ships; considering the way Americans choose to spend their $$$ (favoring foreign-produced goods) & the way corporate America offshores core operations (design, engineering, fabrication, blah, blah, blah), this is miniscule in the comparison.

Also seems rather empty of the legislature to be in such an uproar about a "posible terrorist threat" from a foreign-controlled port when they are practically apathetic/lethargic concerning a certain US-controlled border that is a veritable open door for damn-well anyone who would hoof it.

Looks like the pot calling out the kettle, IMO.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:56:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Pipe down. The UAE isn't an enemy of this nation, & keeping good relations w/ friendly Middle Eastern nations (such as the UAE, Jordan, etc) goes a long way in promoting those good relations, trust, respect, etc. We need more Middle East allies & fewer enemies. Blame our waning control of ports.

Keep in mind, there are fewer US-flagged cargo ships; considering the way Americans choose to spend their $$$ (favoring foreign-produced goods) & the way corporate America offshores core operations (design, engineering, fabrication, blah, blah, blah), this is miniscule in the comparison.

Also seems rather empty of the legislature to be in such an uproar about a "posible terrorist threat" from a foreign-controlled port when they are practically apathetic/lethargic concerning a certain US-controlled border is a veritable open door for damn-well anyone who would hoof it.

Looks like the pot calling out the kettle, IMO.



Yes, that makes perfect sense: we have a porous southern border so now we should also have a wide open port.

You obviously haven't been keeping up with current events, including the strong ties between Iran and UAE.

Pipe down? You put your pipe down.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:
Yes, that makes perfect sense: we have a porous southern border so now we should also have a wide open port.


So do you really believe by having a foreign company manage port operations that the USCG, DHLS, USCS and the port police will all just go away?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:00:26 PM EDT
guess the guy on the radio was right.....this ain't about ports....it is about racism.

Personally I'm more worried about the Chinese doing the same thing...at the Long Beach facility....but hey....let's just slap an ally around.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:03:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By C-4:
Yes, that makes perfect sense: we have a porous southern border so now we should also have a wide open port.


So do you really believe by having a foreign company manage port operations that the USCG, DHLS, USCS and the port police will all just go away?



So do you really believe that having a foreign company from a country with strong ties to Iran manage port operations will make us safer?

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:05:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gwitness:
guess the guy on the radio was right.....this ain't about ports....it is about racism.



Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:11:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EDDIECRUM:
This is all political b.s. The ports own the port...dirt, cranes, trans-tainers, docks, rail lines, HUGE container parking lots, etc. A steamship company with a contract to dock their ships and off/on load containers, docks and container cranes straddle the ship and take containers off the ship and place them on 20' or 40' tractor trailers driven by stevadors (sp). The driver pulls the container to a specific parking area assigned by a traffic controller, where a large 4 wheel crane called a trans-tainer pulls the container off the truck bed. The driver loops back to the ship to move another container. The trans-tainer stacks the container in a storage area, directed by the port authority.
The issue is this...the stevadors are not employees of the port authority. It is a private company under contract with the port authority. The stevador companies currently working those ports, have sold there contracts to the foreign operators. It is strictly a money transfer. The same stevadors (drivers) that have been working the ports continue to work there, similiar to a stock purchase. They are not involved in security or any other operations. The port authority still owns the port, provides their own security...real cops mostly retired DPS, city, or feds (FBI, ATF). Customs, immigration, border patrol, coast guard are always around.
All of this b.s. could have been avoided if the Bush people had handled it the right way. Dems and republicans are well aware of what is going on, but are posturing to use this issue of Homeland Security in up coming elections. The ONLY bad issue here is that our elected officials are lying (mouth moving) about the issue in order to get re-elected.
All of this has been about truck drivers that drive in a circle moving containers.



So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:20:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 6:31:14 PM EDT by TEXICAN1972]
I support the deal. US Customs and US Coast Guard is in charge of security. It isnt like no other foreign country managed them before?



"The 30 pieces of silver" bit was funny!!---lol
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:23:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



So why is it that the two of us see why this is wrong but no one else can?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:25:10 PM EDT
The UAE may not be our enemy now. They aren't exactly an ally either, though.

Oh and as for the "Everyone against this deal is a racist!" BULLSHIT, I ask you the following:

Was George Bush a racist for suggesting we break our "foreign" (read: Middle Eastern) oil dependance?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:30:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 6:33:48 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Pipe down. The UAE isn't an enemy of this nation, & keeping good relations w/ friendly Middle Eastern nations (such as the UAE, Jordan, etc) goes a long way in promoting those good relations, trust, respect, etc. We need more Middle East allies & fewer enemies. Blame our waning control of ports.

Keep in mind, there are fewer US-flagged cargo ships; considering the way Americans choose to spend their $$$ (favoring foreign-produced goods) & the way corporate America offshores core operations (design, engineering, fabrication, blah, blah, blah), this is miniscule in the comparison.

Also seems rather empty of the legislature to be in such an uproar about a "posible terrorist threat" from a foreign-controlled port when they are practically apathetic/lethargic concerning a certain US-controlled border is a veritable open door for damn-well anyone who would hoof it.

Looks like the pot calling out the kettle, IMO.






Yes, that makes perfect sense: we have a porous southern border so now we should also have a wide open port.


One of many ports under foreign control. You think foreign-controlled ports led to 9-11? Run for the hills.


You obviously haven't been keeping up with current events, including the strong ties between Iran and UAE.


And you're the resident expert on Middle Eastern relations because....?

Yeah - that's it. I've several relatives born, raised, & many still living in Iraq, & who I try to keep in contact with, yet I'm "not up on world affairs". Most Middle Eastern countries have strong ties w/ one another, & it has as much to do w/ their own historical & cultural ties as it does w/ politics. Arabs do business w/ Arabs - go figure. Their own relationships can work in the US' favor. For that matter, Russia has strong ties w/ Iraq. I guess we should launch a strike at them.


Pipe down? You put your pipe down.




It's your photo, pal.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:33:57 PM EDT
Screw the ports! The way I see it we have a greater security risk on our borders. Lets take care of that before we stop a "Business Transaction".
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:37:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 6:40:21 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By C-4:
Yes, that makes perfect sense: we have a porous southern border so now we should also have a wide open port.


So do you really believe by having a foreign company manage port operations that the USCG, DHLS, USCS and the port police will all just go away?



So do you really believe that having a foreign company from a country with strong ties to Iran manage port operations will make us safer?



Dude, what strong ties to Iran? You do realize the UAE wants us in their country to counter Iran's influence? You do realize that the UAE lost islands and rights to drill oil off those islands in the gulf because Iran, basically, invaded them and claimed them? UAE is no friend of Iran.

Edited to get the correct "their".
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:39:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



So why is it that the two of us see why this is wrong but no one else can?


How would the possibility of a foreign operative in the ranks of the stevadors change? They are using the same American work force. To be quite honest, if they had the desire they could probably get an agent hired on now.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:52:17 PM EDT
I think someone ran out of ammo. Or is trying to find some.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



Who manages/runs the Long Beach port.

Want to take a guess
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:09:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



So why is it that the two of us see why this is wrong but no one else can?



How would the possibility of a foreign operative in the ranks of the stevadors change? They are using the same American work force.



Today, yes. And tomorrow?


Originally Posted By dport:
To be quite honest, if they had the desire they could probably get an agent hired on now.



No argument against that statement.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:17:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
And you're the resident expert on Middle Eastern relations because....?



I re-read my post and nowhere do I claim to be an expert on anything. My statements belong in the 'General Knowledge' category.


Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
yet I'm "not up on world affairs"



Not when it comes to the UAE. But when the subject of 'ARFCOMers with relatives in Iraq' comes up, we'll let you know.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:19:07 PM EDT
President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.

-Ann Coulter

anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

If the UAE states have cooperated in the past against al-Qaeda, screwing one of their companies over on this port deal is going to send the message: "Why should we bother? Nothing we do seems to convince the US we're not hostile, so why should we risk our necks only to be insulted like this? There's nothing in it for us, no upside to allying with the USA."
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:26:24 AM EDT
Bob Dole huh? That's when you know it's deep do do. Remember Nafta? All the living prez republican and democrat were for it.


Hmmmmmmm
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:29:29 AM EDT
Give Bob Dole $50 and he will lobby congress to give child molesters probation instead of jail time.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:44:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



So why is it that the two of us see why this is wrong but no one else can?



I've been saying it in every thread as well. The UAE is going to be the management company, meaning their people will need to have access to the entire facitilty and will be able to come and go as they please. Why would a terrorist want to be a grunt worker when he could be part of the management company, be overlooked by everyone, and have compelete access to the facility without question? UAE says that their workers will have background checks done in their country. Do you trust our national security to a foreign government?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:45:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
So, no foreign operative could EVER be put into the ranks of the stevadors there, huh?

Sorry, but if you give away ANY portion of the operation of a major seaport to a known, unfriendly nation that does not see eye to eye with the west except how to make a dollar, then you have opened the door. It may be only ajar now, but it is open, nonetheless.

Nope, I stand firm against the idea and will continue to be against it until I see that the UAE has acknowledged Israels right to exist, condemns Al Queda (sp?), and acknowledges that their religious system has been hijacked by wackos.



So why is it that the two of us see why this is wrong but no one else can?



How would the possibility of a foreign operative in the ranks of the stevadors change? They are using the same American work force.



Today, yes. And tomorrow?


Originally Posted By dport:
To be quite honest, if they had the desire they could probably get an agent hired on now.



No argument against that statement.


The last statement already answered your question.

The fact is DPW has agreed to additional security measures, which have not been made public. My guess is they are in the area of hiring.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:00:55 AM EDT
when I was in afganhistan, the UAE base camp was right next to ours. Those f*ck tards had so much money that all, yes all of the men had some kind of servent. they traveled with big trunks full of nice silver and fine foods. They had money and they used it, just like they used it to buy dole. If you ask me the UAE is playing both sides making all the money they can. there holding good relations with Iran because Iran has a large military force and is muslium. then you have america needing a good allies in the middleeast and sure enough UAE was right there with their hand out, ready to make money and be a friend( more like whore). a large confrontation is coming with the middle east and the west. the rumor of war is rank with nuclear waste from Iran. in opinion the sh*t is going to hit the fan big time.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:12:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TEXICAN1972:
I support the deal. US Customs and US Coast Guard is in charge of security. It isnt like no other foreign country managed them before?








Let them have it. If a nuke levels NYC and was entered through
a UAE port we could all say we told you so
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:50:57 PM EDT
^^^LOL


If they (the terrorists) want to enter the USA. All they would have to do is walk across our land borders. This I believe would be the "SMARTEST" point of entry.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:28:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 4:31:02 AM EDT by TrijiCog]
This just in:

The Mexican government has been given control of the day to day operations of our borders.The US border patrol will still be patrolling,but the operations logistics have been handed over to the Mexican government.

A high level source with Homeland Security was quoted as saying:

"We have been assured that the Mexican governement will be proactive in stemming the tide of illegal aliens coming across the border."

President Bush was quoted as saying:

"I have the utmost confidence in Vicente Fox and his commitment to our border security.Besides,I didn't find out about this until I watched CNN".

Not to worry folks,our border patrol will still have a job,but the logistics end of it will be handled by the Mexican government.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:44:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TrijiCog:
This just in:

The Mexican government has been given control of the day to day operations of our borders.The US border patrol will still be patrolling,but the operations logistics have been handed over to the Mexican government.

A high level source with Homeland Security was quoted as saying:

"We have been assured that the Mexican governement will be proactive in stemming the tide of illegal aliens coming across the border."

President Bush was quoted as saying:

"I have the utmost confidence in Vicente Fox and his commitment to our border security.Besides,I didn't find out about this until I watched CNN".

Not to worry folks,our border patrol will still have a job,but the logistics end of it will be handled by the Mexican government.



Link Posted: 2/24/2006 3:06:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 3:06:41 PM EDT by TEXICAN1972]
^^Just reading that gives me a warm fuzzy feelings. Oops its just I pissed on myself!

Link Posted: 2/24/2006 3:14:52 PM EDT

Ready! Fire! Aim!
By: Nick Danger · Section: Diaries

We sure do have to ban that deal where a company based in Dubai plans to buy a company based in Britain. It's not clear how we do that, given that we aren't Dubai or Britain, but we have to. Maybe we should invade Britain. We can't have foreigners owning our ports. It's true that the British company doing it now is technically foreign, but they don't really own the ports. They have a contract to operate certain things. But if foreigners buy the British company, they will own our ports. Right?

That is why we need to grab our torches and pitchforks right now, and take to the barricades to stop the merger of these two companies, neither of which is based in the United States. That way, one foreign company that doesn't own our ports will not be bought by a different foreign company that won't own our ports. Because otherwise Bush's true colors as a traitor are finally coming out. And besides this new foreign company is from a country that has Moslems in it. Unlike Britain.

It's time for Americans to stand up and be counted! The trouble is, if we can't even tell whether we own the ports before heading out on the mission to keep the foreigners from owning the ports the foreigners don't own, how will we be able to count past five?

But never mind that. If we've learned anything from the Moslems, it's that we don't need any facts before we grab the torches and pitchforks. And there's nothing like cartoon images to stoke the fires of activism. So let's all stare at cartoon pictures of Arabs, and forget about the facts, and go berserk. Hoo-ah!

http://nick-danger.redstate.com/story/2006/2/22/2655/73996
Top Top