Reasons to stop the port lease

[OCA]

oh boy---is this the old I KNOW than you argument or the I have had more EXPERIENCE than you argument?

This thread has deteriorated into personal BS. Yes--I am going to sidestep and avoid you like I do dogshit.

Guess you are mentally unable to answer straightforward questions, par for the course with you though.

Yeah you sidestep me because you can't handle me, i'm more than you can chew.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey, great posting Dillo-- haven't been able to rep you for days, still can't.

I'd like to add some more (not that outspoken) reasons to your list:

11. Americans should not "sell off" America

12. All Arabs/Muslims hate Israel.

13. Michael Savage said so.

Michael Savage is a genius. Just so you know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dillo I think we are on the same side on this argument, but allow me to debunk your list, if I may:

The UAE has ties to terrorism.
The UAE may have had ties to terrorism in the past. I think somewhere around September 12, 2001, they figured out whose side to be on. In fact, Osama bin Laden threatened the UAE in 2002 (HT: OCA) because they were too pro-Western for him.

Foreigners should not be allowed lease US port operations
Says who? The isolationist wing of the GOP? Republicans have understood the realities of global trade for decades. I wish this ideology would hurry up and die already. Global capitalism is here to stay.
From a practical standpoint, though, which US companies bid to buy the port operations from the British company? Where are all the American companies who "ought" to do this work?

The investigation of the deal was secretly done behind closed doors.
I don't think it was done secretly, it's just that no one paid attention to it. I am glad we're having the national debate, though.

The White House has pressured the members of CFIUS to lie in thier report.


We should have all the security (border) issues resolved before we deal with this one.
This is pie-in-the-sky if I ever heard it. Which border issues need resolution? How long will that take? What happens in the meantime - do we close all ports operated by foreign companies?

The UAE is run by dictators.
The UAE is not going to run the port operations, so this has no bearing on teh issue.

The chances of a terrorist attack is greater if the UAE operates the port instead of someone else.
Again, the UAE won't control the post ops - the company will. Still, this assumes that the company has something to gain by allowing such an event to occur. As it is, 2/3 of the board of directors are either American or European, so they are certainly not going to allow terrorism to occur within their control.

The UAE will have access to all our security measures.
They won't.

Some members from both sides of the aisle have reservations about it.
Great. That's why we're having the debate.

I still haven't seen a good reason to deny this company the port operations in question.

You believe all this jeff? The UAE is 100% terrorism free?

It's not protectionism to not want despotic, possibly enemy infiltrated foreign governments to run your ports. It's common sense.

The government of UAE runs DPW so yes it matters just a bit that they're despotic RULERS, as they call them on their web site.

 

[5stringJeff]

You believe all this jeff? The UAE is 100% terrorism free?

It's not protectionism to not want despotic, possibly enemy infiltrated foreign governments to run your ports. It's common sense.

The government of UAE runs DPW so yes it matters just a bit that they're despotic RULERS, as they call them on their web site.

I did not say that the UAE is 100% terrorist free. I'm saying that when Dubya said that "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," the UAE quietly but unmistakably chose to be on our side.

Good luck on finding a country that is 100% terrorist free. The Vatican, maybe, but you've got to be a very good Catholic to live there.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I did not say that the UAE is 100% terrorist free. I'm saying that when Dubya said that "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," the UAE quietly but unmistakably chose to be on our side.

Good luck on finding a country that is 100% terrorist free. The Vatican, maybe, but you've got to be a very good Catholic to live there.

It's easier to believe all is well than to accept that our presidents is selling out our security interests.

Your logic is slipping. "Since no country is 100% terrorist free, we must let UAE take over our port management." That's not smart jeff. You know it.

 

[dilloduck]

It's easier to believe all is well than to accept that our presidents is selling out our security interests.

Your logic is slipping. "Since no country is 100% terrorist free, we must let UAE take over our port management." That's not smart jeff. You know it.

Your nuts RW---It takes more guts to trust than to distrust.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's easier to believe all is well than to accept that our presidents is selling out our security interests.

Your logic is slipping. "Since no country is 100% terrorist free, we must let UAE take over our port management." That's not smart jeff. You know it.

That's not the logic I'm using. I'm saying that the US government has already reviewed this, the company isn't taking over port security, and the whole thing is an overreaction. I don't blame people for overreacting, this being post-9/11 and all, but if one takes a look at the facts of the case, there is no reason to believe that this company is going to detract from the security of our ports.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's not the logic I'm using. I'm saying that the US government has already reviewed this, the company isn't taking over port security, and the whole thing is an overreaction. I don't blame people for overreacting, this being post-9/11 and all, but if one takes a look at the facts of the case, there is no reason to believe that this company is going to detract from the security of our ports.

But having access to data and procedures is also a security risk. It's not an overreation at all.

Spinning hard, aren't we.

 

[dilloduck]

But having access to data and procedures is also a security risk. It's not an overreation at all.

Spinning hard, aren't we.

I'm working hard to save your soul on this one RW. Maybe this will help.
I am MORE afraid of doing ANYTHING that would help the liberal party come into power than I am about the UAE making it easier to attack the US. I know full well that the liberals will destroy America as I know it and they are already here and only a few votes from our destruction.

 

[Hobbit]

The government of the UAE gave $15 million to Hamas last year. They also still recognize the Taliban, but not Israel. The government owns DPW, so yes, they will be running it. Nuclear components have passed through their ports to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. There's an illegal arms dealer who operates wide out in the open in that country, and they have yet to arrest him, despite strong U.S. pressure, and it's because he's realated to one of the members of government. Then, there's the fact that it's a government, and I don't trust any government to run anything efficiently.

 

[dilloduck]

The government of the UAE gave $15 million to Hamas last year. They also still recognize the Taliban, but not Israel. The government owns DPW, so yes, they will be running it. Nuclear components have passed through their ports to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. There's an illegal arms dealer who operates wide out in the open in that country, and they have yet to arrest him, despite strong U.S. pressure, and it's because he's realated to one of the members of government. Then, there's the fact that it's a government, and I don't trust any government to run anything efficiently.

I'll ask again--who do you trust? sorry---no one is not an acceptable answer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll ask again--who do you trust? sorry---no one is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm working hard to save your soul on this one RW. Maybe this will help.
I am MORE afraid of doing ANYTHING that would help the liberal party come into power than I am about the UAE making it easier to attack the US. I know full well that the liberals will destroy America as I know it and they are already here and only a few votes from our destruction.

My soul's fine. The deal sucks. I think republicans will still win. The dems are in total shambles.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your nuts RW---It takes more guts to trust than to distrust.

This is crapthought-- a new term I came up with.

Trusting terrorist governments doesn't take guts, it takes stupidity.

Dare to be stupid?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People. They support hamas. They won't recognize israel. What are you guys thinking exactly? Get the Bush control chip out of your mushy little skulls.

 

[trobinett]

It appears that the "cooling off" period called by both sides is a good idea.

At first blush, I was against this buy out, but once I did some background work, got the facts, weighted the advantages vs any disadvantages. It became apparent, that this is a good deal.

Having said that, I still think the "cooling off" period is a good call, so discussion's like on this board, and others can take place, and more people become comfortable with the deal. :usa:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It appears that the "cooling off" period called by both sides is a good idea.

At first blush, I was against this buy out, but once I did some background work, got the facts, weighted the advantages vs any disadvantages. It became apparent, that this is a good deal.

Having said that, I still think the "cooling off" period is a good call, so discussion's like on this board, and others can take place, and more people become comfortable with the deal. :usa:

I feel as facts come to light more people will see the obvious stupidity of a deal such as this.

They support hamas. They reject recognizing Israel. Why are we doing business with a company who's policies are the same as the new palestinian terrorist government we refuse to deal with?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why was Bush's first kneejerk reaction to shout "veto", when he supposedly didn't know anything about the deal? Doesn't that seem odd?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What? Nobody's gonna call me a racist or protectionist? Probably not, you know why? Those are idiotic talking points designed to attack the person instead of deal with the issue of security, and inside you all know it's b.s. And inside, you all know the port deal is b.s.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

yep. It's pretty stupid. Idiotic all around.