Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rushfan, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. rushfan

    rushfan Well-Known Member

    How about having the United Arab Emerits UAE taking control of some of the major ports in the U.S. UAE harbored some of the 9/11 terriorists (bastards). Also UAE recognizes the Taliban as an official group. Now head of Homeland Security said the company went through strict background checks, etc. In my humble opinion, there is a time to forget about the wonders of economics, and think about our country's security.

    That's my 2 cents.
  2. Why would you not trust the Bush administration on this? Michael Chertoff spent all day Sunday defending the decision:
    We have a very disciplined process, its a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security, Chertoff told Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

    See, they know what they are doing, they just can't tell you why, it's 'classified'.

    Nothing to see here, move along...
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    The news just said the Coast Guard makes final decisions....not this UAE company.

    I still don't care! I don't want the fox guarding my chicken house!! :mad:
  4. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    The way the rumor mill is playing it, the longshoremen will be a thing of the past. The workslowdown this past year showed just how sensitive the entry into this country of goods are.

    Dont know if I like Israel doing it either which is also a possibility.

    But they would probably do a better job than what has been done.

    Interesting thoughts.

  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    My understanding from watching the news is the british had the contract and UAE bought them out?

    I agree with More though I don't want the fox guarding the henhouse.

    There is more to this story then the political crap coming out of it. And yes I'm sure Homeland Security does have a rigourous approval process parts of which I'm sure are confidential for very good reasons.

    Take the politics out of it and make the decision based on whether its the right thing to do.

    I guess a fair question in assessing this would be to find out what else in this country is controlled or operated by foriegn interests. And then make the assessment on what is right here. I have a feeling this is not the first occurance.
  6. As with everything, it's all about money.

    Carlyle Group and James Baker and CSX all figure in.
  7. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    The fox has been guarding the henhouse for a long time. Most US ports are already controlled by foreign interests, mostly China.
  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I wish James had run for president. Would have been terrific. :thumbup1:
  9. jules23

    jules23 Logic? Who needs logic?


    My favorite quote from this article is :
    "At his Cabinet meeting Thursday, Bush also questioned whether a double standard was being applied to DP World and said it was "interesting" that there was no outcry about a British company managing the ports."

    I laughed for a good five minutes...to the point where I was almost in tears. Um...hello...is he kidding? Our ports should not be handled by foreign interests, but last time I checked Britian was our ally, therefore, we can reasonably assume our ports would be guarded by them in a decent manner. The UAE, Saudi's, mostly everyone in the Middle East (with a few exceptions) HATE us with an unrivaled passion...why in the world would we let anyone from those countries guard our ports is beyond me. Except that Bush doesn't think we 'need to worry about security'.

    Oh, goody.
  10. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    I wrote my senators on this issue. It seems to me that the whole war on terror would be negated by this decision. All the troops killed in combat, die in vain.
    This is absurd, but it's consistant with this administration's track record. The port in Dubai, UAE in which this same company controls security, allowed a Pakastani scientist to ship nuclear warhead ingredients (enriched uranium or something) to various areas of the world, undetected, a few years back.
    Now I know they aren't all terrorists and such, but as seen in Iraq, they look no different from a terrorist. Usually terrorists only attack once, so background checks do no good.
    I urge the lot of you to write congress and get this thing ressolved properly.

    If it does go through, the price of gas might go down though.haha
  11. automated

    automated Active Member

  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  15. If that doesn't turn all the Rethugs against it, what will?

    Did anyone catch the news blurb where al-Qaeda claims to have infiltrated the government of the UAE back in 2002?

    Maybe Bush giving control of our ports to the UAE is a payback to Osama for helping him win the election in 2004. Bush is known for taking care of his friends.
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Don't worry TS , Fienstien will be sure to get a piece of the action.
  17. If you are going to attack someone, at least learn to spell their name correctly.

    I believe that Bush & Co. have more ties to the UAE than Ms. Feinstein's husband, but if we need logistical support for our troops there in the future, I'm sure that his company will do the patriotic thing, and give the lowest bid for the services requested.
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    If you knew anything about the military besides how to badmouth it you would know the military provides its own logistical support.
  19. Perhaps you could explain why KBR gets $13billion for 'LOGCAP' then, if no outside firms supply logistics to our military. BTW, the only person I know of that has badmouthed our military was someone named 'beegdadday' who was banned from the Yahoo board.:lol::lol::lol:
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Thats good you got banned from two boards. Guess you're going for some kind of record.