U.S. /Dubai Port Deal

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by Rudey
Basically you now admit it was an off-topic attack. That's great.

You also make comments about dying in a ditch. I don't understand. Drama queen much?

And now you're making claims that someone is picking a fight with you, except it is you that posted repeatedly and finally admitted to posting an attack.

Seriously, stop. Communication is not your strong point.

-Rudey

I never said it wasn't an attack. The issue was it off topic or not. That is what I was disagreed with.

There should be no doubt by anyone many of my political related post are an attack on Bush and sometimes the more conservative Republican party members.

I never tried to hide it I even have had in my profile under interest "spreading my political propaganda" for years.

If McCain runs in 08 you won't see me bashing him and if he wins you won't see many if any post bashing him as President.

If a certain few Democrats run and/or win the job of President you might see me attack them too.

KSigkid makes a good point about debate, and I may just do that more even though it will be called stupid and unintelligent anyways.

I do apologize, I was being over dramtic with the ditch comment. It was a bad heat of the moment choice of words to get my point across.

I guess most my responses were to imply there is a better way to disagree with or say you don't like my post than saying "get a life", calling someone stupid, or insane.

I am sure you are a very intelligent person. I just don't understand why insults are replies to some people, when it deals with a post you disagree with or dislike.

Is trying to insult people the most likely way to get them to stop posting the stuff you disagree with?

"Communication is not your strong point." I would have to agree with that statement to. Good thing I am not a speech writer or debater.

[Rudey]

Get a life.

-Rudey

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
I never said it wasn't an attack. The issue was it off topic or not. That is what I was disagreed with.

There should be no doubt by anyone many of my political related post are an attack on Bush and sometimes the more conservative Republican party members.

I never tried to hide it I even have had in my profile under interest "spreading my political propaganda" for years.

If McCain runs in 08 you won't see me bashing him and if he wins you won't see many if any post bashing him as President.

If a certain few Democrats run and/or win the job of President you might see me attack them too.

KSigkid makes a good point about debate, and I may just do that more even though it will be called stupid and unintelligent anyways.

I do apologize, I was being over dramtic with the ditch comment. It was a bad heat of the moment choice of words to get my point across.

I guess most my responses were to imply there is a better way to disagree with or say you don't like my post than saying "get a life", calling someone stupid, or insane.

I am sure you are a very intelligent person. I just don't understand why insults are replies to some people, when it deals with a post you disagree with or dislike.

Is trying to insult people the most likely way to get them to stop posting the stuff you disagree with?

"Communication is not your strong point." I would have to agree with that statement to. Good thing I am not a speech writer or debater.

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by Rudey
Get a life.

-Rudey

Thanks for the advice.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Thanks for the advice.

No prob. Quote me on it.

-Rudey
--For dexterity

[Tickled Pink 2]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
"Overriding 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 efforts in Congress to block the agreement. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/...ports_security


All over the news today, reports have been saying the repubs are trying to throw a racial profiling issue in the face of democrats who oppose this deal because it is to be made to a middle eastern country. Aside from the fact that that, in and of itself is rediculous, there is also the apparent confusion by repubs ( or at the very least republican/conservative commentators) about what the REAl racial profiling issues that Americans and democrats have been fighting about for the past several years.

All I can say about the port issue is that had it been Democrats proposing to sell control over 6 critical ports in our country to a country like this, LORD KNOWS the republicans would be playing the national secutiy card left and right! I really don't see how in the world the President and his supporters can go at this deal with a strait face when the UAE and Saudi Arabia either clearly or at the very minimum potentially had ties to 911. I don't care what Bush says about they played by the rules and is an ally in the war on terror. COME ON!

SMH

[Phasad1913]

I heard/read today that Dubai gave up on the deal. LOL. They said "Damn this, y'all can have it".

[Lady of Pearl]

I have heard too that those guarding the port had dealings with 911 and thus feel that our security would be compromised

[moe.ron]

#1 The UAE firm will NOT be handling the security details for the ports. That would be under the homeland security
#2 Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. However, here's another shocking news, some were also from Saudi Arabia and the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia runs 6 ports.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
#1 The UAE firm will NOT be handling the security details for the ports. That would be under the homeland security
#2 Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. However, here's another shocking news, some were also from Saudi Arabia and the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia runs 6 ports.

Which 6 ports does it run?

And even if you don't run security, you know quite a bit about the inner workings of a port. A bank teller might not be the security guard at a bank, but he would know how that security works.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
Which 6 ports does it run?

And even if you don't run security, you know quite a bit about the inner workings of a port. A bank teller might not be the security guard at a bank, but he would know how that security works.

-Rudey

Yup, however, ultimately it is the responsibility of the Homeland Security to check all the employees of the ports to ensure there are no Al-Qaeda mole. It all goes back to Homeland Security. If Homeland Security is run properly, there should be no problem. Plus, has there been any allegation that the particular firm has any connection to Al-Qaeda?

About the 6 ports, I have to retract that statement for the time being. It seems that the Saudi firm runs a terminal in those ports. Here is a good editorial about how the entire thing is being blown out of proportion and I personally feel it has an underlying xenophobic message:

Link to the Editorial

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Yup, however, ultimately it is the responsibility of the Homeland Security to check all the employees of the ports to ensure there are no Al-Qaeda mole. It all goes back to Homeland Security. If Homeland Security is run properly, there should be no problem. Plus, has there been any allegation that the particular firm has any connection to Al-Qaeda?

About the 6 ports, I have to retract that statement for the time being. It seems that the Saudi firm runs a terminal in those ports. Here is a good editorial about how the entire thing is being blown out of proportion and I personally feel it has an underlying xenophobic message:

Link to the Editorial

Do you realize how ridiculous that statement sounds?

The word "Properly" is subjective. What you meant is the word "Perfect". Security systems run the way they run and that's that. People make mistakes. Terrorists and thieves will always exist. Nowhere is there no crime.

And the UAE is a partial owner in this firm. Is that the same UAE that hosted Osama? I believe so. That's an Al-Qaeda tie right there.

But the kicker about the entire thing is that the UAE and this company support an embargo against Israeli goods (coincidentally the Israelis are supportive of this deal for some bizarre reason). That sounds...xenophobic.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Does anyone know if the Congressional vote yesterday in which Republicans allegedly "killed" the deal is binding and everlasting?

[moe.ron]

So, the UAE firm should not do business because the Homeland Security cannot totally guaranteed that they will not messed up. Since the UAE is in the middle east, they are Arabs and most likely muslims. Since the 9/11 hijackers were Arab Muslims, them camel jockeys cannot be trusted. hence, the UAE firm (who were cleared by the US Navy and the British government) should not partake in the running of the US ports. is that the gist of your argument?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
So, the UAE firm should not do business because the Homeland Security cannot totally guaranteed that they will not messed up. Since the UAE is in the middle east, they are Arabs and most likely muslims. Since the 9/11 hijackers were Arab Muslims, them camel jockeys cannot be trusted. hence, the UAE firm (who were cleared by the US Navy and the British government) should not partake in the running of the US ports. is that the gist of your argument?

Nobody can guarantee anything. What don't you understand??

Yes the UAE is Arab (The A stands for Arab) and Muslim.

Camel jockeys? If you have ethnic stereotypes you want to perpetuate, then make it more clear.

My argument is laid out pretty clearly. If you have a specific question about it, ask.

I'm hoping it's the language barrier, but otherwise you sound silly.

-Rudey

[Tickled Pink 2]

Here was my understanding - the Arabs were getiing upset that Congress did not want them over the port and began making financial threats as well as would not continue to provide intelligence concerning the "war on terrorism". So, Dubai pulls out to save the relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E.

My question is.... because of all the controversy - won't the Arabs still be offended, because ultimately, they still lost out on the deal, no matter who pulled it?????