The random political thoughts thread - Page 9

scaeagles · 02-20-2006, 08:40 AM

Good Lord.

Everyone here knows I pretty much support President Bush. One of my major criticisms is his hanlding of the border. It was, until today, my major criticism.

I have never seen anything so boneheaded in my life.

The US is going to turn control of 5 major US seaports to a company owned and operated out of United Arab Emirates.

WHAT?!?!

I'm sorry if this is politcially incorrect. I will certainly agree that the UAE has been an ally as of late. But the is now flippin' way we should allow an Arab owned company to operate and manage any portion of out seaports.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1022-8852r.htm

Moonliner · 02-20-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Good Lord.

I have never seen anything so boneheaded in my life.

WHAT?!?!

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your life.

Can I send you some fliers on democratic fundraisers in your area?

wendybeth · 02-20-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Good Lord.

Everyone here knows I pretty much support President Bush. One of my major criticisms is his hanlding of the border. It was, until today, my major criticism.

I have never seen anything so boneheaded in my life.

The US is going to turn control of 5 major US seaports to a company owned and operated out of United Arab Emirates.

WHAT?!?!

I'm sorry if this is politcially incorrect. I will certainly agree that the UAE has been an ally as of late. But the is now flippin' way we should allow an Arab owned company to operate and manage any portion of out seaports.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1022-8852r.htm

I completely agree, and you can put that in your sig line....within the proper context, of course.

Nothing they do suprises me anymore. Nothing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though. Years ago, when I was in college, there was a guy from the UAE who wanted me to go out with him. I wasn't interested, but he spent a bit of time trying to convince me- flaunted the fact that his family was wealthy, his uncle was the president, etc, but I refused, finally telling him that I had a real problem with the repressive nature of the patriarchal Arab society and their anti-semitism. He told me his mother very much enjoyed her separate household and having her every whim catered to, and showed me a picture in a UAE newspaper that had his uncle shaking hands with the Israeli prime minister. He finally left me alone after I started dating someone else.

Alex · 02-20-2006, 02:20 PM

I'm fine with it.

It's not like the company is going to be importing the port employees from Afghanistan "camps of leisure" to work there. They'll still be Americans. And there is nothing preventing al Qaeda from infiltrating the employment of ports run by American companies (or run by the foreign company that was previously running it).

As the article states, the company isn't reponsible for port security anyway. They're responsible for lining the boats up and getting the stuff on to and off of the ships as promplty as possible.

Besides, the motivations for a UAE company to avoid terrorist attach in one of their ports is much stronger than it is for the company who runs the Port of Oakland (if they're American, I have on idea). If the Port of Oakland has a terrorist attack the managers will just say "hey, blame the president and we need $6 billion to prevent us from going bankrupt." The UAE company will face invasion and an assumption that they personally oversaw the plan for the terrorist attack.

UAE, as far as Middle East countries go, is relatively liberal (not that this is particularly relevant).

Alex · 02-20-2006, 06:12 PM

I have changed my mind. I had missed, in the initial stories, that the UAE company is owned by the UAE government.

While I don't care if foreign private companies operate our ports, I think it is reasonable to be more concerned about foreign national governments doing so.

wendybeth · 02-20-2006, 06:22 PM

Even Tom Ridge has concerns, although he thinks that a more thorough explain will show that the Bush admin is on top of things: CNN.

"But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.
"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."

Ghoulish Delight · 02-20-2006, 06:31 PM

Ah yes, Tom, I'm sure we'll get transparancy, explanation, and disclosure in droves from this administration. It's what they're best at.

Moonliner · 02-21-2006, 12:25 PM

Like most people I have been looking into the details of this story, and I'm going to have to break with tradition and DEFEND the Bush administration.

What exactly is wrong with this deal? We are not talking about outsourcing some work to Hammas or Iraq here, it's the UAE. Pretty much our #1 ally in the region. Is this a way to win support in the region? "Hey all you Arabs are the same to us so no deal?" I'm ashamed at the knee jerk anti-Arab reaction this is getting. If they can do the job, which has been outsourced for decades anyway, then what's the big deal? How secure do you think these port operations are now anyway? With the increased attention they would get I'm betting security would actually increase. After all if the UAE company allows a major "incident" it would certainly cost them the contract and a boat load of cash. I think we should show the world that we know there is a difference between radical fundamentalists and the Arab population. I for one welcome the UAE's participation in the global economy.

scaeagles · 02-21-2006, 01:09 PM

Actually, the more I'm hearing about it, the less that it bothers me. Basic operations will not change. Security procedures will not change. Arabs will not be staffing the docks. While that may sound racist, it is a reality that Islamic terrorists, who have struck us and have sworn to again, are Arab.

My reaction was knee jerk. Again, the more I hear about it, the less it is of huge concern to me.

Edited to add: But I'm still against it overall. I admit that my opinion on this wavers greatly.

Moonliner · 02-21-2006, 01:26 PM

On the other hand, I do find a bit of humor in this. The policy of fear that the Bush administration has been pushing on the American people for years is coming back to bite them in the ass. Now many Americans see the entire middle east as an enemy to be feared.

02-20-2006, 08:40 AM	#81
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Good Lord. Everyone here knows I pretty much support President Bush. One of my major criticisms is his hanlding of the border. It was, until today, my major criticism. I have never seen anything so boneheaded in my life. The US is going to turn control of 5 major US seaports to a company owned and operated out of United Arab Emirates. WHAT?!?! I'm sorry if this is politcially incorrect. I will certainly agree that the UAE has been an ally as of late. But the is now flippin' way we should allow an Arab owned company to operate and manage any portion of out seaports. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1022-8852r.htm
	Submit to Quotes

02-20-2006, 02:20 PM	#84
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm fine with it. It's not like the company is going to be importing the port employees from Afghanistan "camps of leisure" to work there. They'll still be Americans. And there is nothing preventing al Qaeda from infiltrating the employment of ports run by American companies (or run by the foreign company that was previously running it). As the article states, the company isn't reponsible for port security anyway. They're responsible for lining the boats up and getting the stuff on to and off of the ships as promplty as possible. Besides, the motivations for a UAE company to avoid terrorist attach in one of their ports is much stronger than it is for the company who runs the Port of Oakland (if they're American, I have on idea). If the Port of Oakland has a terrorist attack the managers will just say "hey, blame the president and we need $6 billion to prevent us from going bankrupt." The UAE company will face invasion and an assumption that they personally oversaw the plan for the terrorist attack. UAE, as far as Middle East countries go, is relatively liberal (not that this is particularly relevant).
	Submit to Quotes

02-20-2006, 06:12 PM	#85
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I have changed my mind. I had missed, in the initial stories, that the UAE company is owned by the UAE government. While I don't care if foreign private companies operate our ports, I think it is reasonable to be more concerned about foreign national governments doing so.
	Submit to Quotes

02-20-2006, 06:22 PM	#86
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Even Tom Ridge has concerns, although he thinks that a more thorough explain will show that the Bush admin is on top of things: CNN. "But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security. "So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface." __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-20-2006, 06:31 PM	#87
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Ah yes, Tom, I'm sure we'll get transparancy, explanation, and disclosure in droves from this administration. It's what they're best at. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 12:25 PM	#88
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Like most people I have been looking into the details of this story, and I'm going to have to break with tradition and DEFEND the Bush administration. What exactly is wrong with this deal? We are not talking about outsourcing some work to Hammas or Iraq here, it's the UAE. Pretty much our #1 ally in the region. Is this a way to win support in the region? "Hey all you Arabs are the same to us so no deal?" I'm ashamed at the knee jerk anti-Arab reaction this is getting. If they can do the job, which has been outsourced for decades anyway, then what's the big deal? How secure do you think these port operations are now anyway? With the increased attention they would get I'm betting security would actually increase. After all if the UAE company allows a major "incident" it would certainly cost them the contract and a boat load of cash. I think we should show the world that we know there is a difference between radical fundamentalists and the Arab population. I for one welcome the UAE's participation in the global economy. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 01:09 PM	#89
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Actually, the more I'm hearing about it, the less that it bothers me. Basic operations will not change. Security procedures will not change. Arabs will not be staffing the docks. While that may sound racist, it is a reality that Islamic terrorists, who have struck us and have sworn to again, are Arab. My reaction was knee jerk. Again, the more I hear about it, the less it is of huge concern to me. Edited to add: But I'm still against it overall. I admit that my opinion on this wavers greatly.
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 01:26 PM	#90
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	On the other hand, I do find a bit of humor in this. The policy of fear that the Bush administration has been pushing on the American people for years is coming back to bite them in the ass. Now many Americans see the entire middle east as an enemy to be feared. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes