Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 91 (289753)
02-23-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:12 AM


I'm sorry if you take offense to facts. I know you don't like them, but they are reality.
I'm sorry, where did I challenge your facts? Your facts were absolutely correct - Bush is dangerously out-of-touch and out of the loop in his own administration.
What I didn't understand was why you think that constituted a defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:12 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 17 of 91 (289755)
02-23-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 11:14 AM


You'd think so, but the Bush administration was so intent on this deal going through that they've specifically waived many of the requirements foreign corporations must usually adhere to in order to do business here.
DRIVEL.
The Bush Administration DIDN't KNOW about the deal, didn't have anything to do with it, and they certaily din't waive any requirement for anything.
If they did, please post a link and quote the source stating so. This debate forum still needs a little substantiation.

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:28 AM Tal has replied
 Message 38 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-23-2006 6:54 PM Tal has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 91 (289762)
02-23-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:22 AM


The Bush Administration DIDN't KNOW about the deal, didn't have anything to do with it, and they certaily din't waive any requirement for anything.
Where do you get this stuff, Tal? Hannity? These statements are outright falsehoods.
From the Associated Press:
quote:
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
By TED BRIDIS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 22, 2006 9:05 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
So, the administration are the ones who brokered the deal, they got to take a peek at some secret records, but we're just supposed to trust Bush that they won't do anything bad in the future, long after Bush himself is out of office, because Dubai Ports is essentially immune from prosecution in US courts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:22 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 19 of 91 (289764)
02-23-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 11:28 AM


Link your source please.

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:35 AM Tal has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 91 (289765)
02-23-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:13 AM


That is who made the deal. It is a simple business deal between 2 businesses. Not some Government port sales agreement.
See, that's not true. Control of a port is not something that two business can decide on their own. The government has to be in on it.
The administration was indeed aware, and involved.
quote:
President George W. Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration
(Emphasis mine.)
quote:
"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them -- even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."
"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.
And all this aside, you're still ignoring the fact that now that he does know about it, Bush is heartily supporting the deal.
quote:
Bush has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 02-23-2006 11:36 AM

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:13 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:40 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 91 (289768)
02-23-2006 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:30 AM


Link your source please.
I've already sourced the article, it's up there in the byline. Looking up AP articles isn't that hard. Try Google News.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:30 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 91 (289769)
02-23-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by macaroniandcheese
02-23-2006 11:06 AM


so what if a couple people who "did 911" were born there. big hairy deal. i don't even believe that the "scary muslims" had anything to do with 911.
I actually did not bring up the fact that a couple of the hijackers were from UAE. And I stated that I am not trying to make this an anti-Islamic type thing.
The title of this thread, while hyperbolic, was supposed to be ironic. Given this administration's rhetoric, don't their actions regarding this deal seem highly contradictory and if it had been a dem suggesting it, wouldn't it have been played as giving in to the enemy?
As it stands I think this deal is bad for this nation, regardless of if they were Islamic or not.
All this said, I have to say I do not believe 911 was setup by Bush and I doubt he'd trying to create some new problem. If there is an issue here, it would probably be graft as you suggest.
but worse. why did he learn about it "on the news"?
If that is true it is very troubling.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-23-2006 11:06 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-23-2006 11:41 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 23 of 91 (289770)
02-23-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dan Carroll
02-23-2006 11:33 AM


I agree Dan, I was just arguing with Crash about her/his/its first reply.
I know Bush supports the deal now.

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2006 11:33 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 24 of 91 (289771)
02-23-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
02-23-2006 11:36 AM


i don't think it's necessarily bad for the country. i think they could go about it better. like requiring such things as would make them beholden to the american court system. but we all know what republicans neocons think of the courts.
they'd rather have a lynching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 11:36 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 25 of 91 (289772)
02-23-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


1. The Ports are already run by a foreign company.
2. If the US blocks the takeover based on security grounds they've just given carte blanc to any other country wishing to oppose a takeover by a US country to block it on spurious 'security grounds'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 1:22 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 91 (289776)
02-23-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Heathen
02-23-2006 11:09 AM


I'd agree with Jazzns that it is a bit of a knee jerk reaction
As you saw, later in my post I tone things down a bit. I also agree with Jazzns that it is knee jerk to claim that bad things will certainly come. But this administration has used this before and regarding security issues like these, when they did not involve as questionable of entities as a theocratic state and as important a thing as a port.
I was ironically using their own method to highlight their inconsistency. But to make clear I do feel it is a bad idea, and am making more concise arguments about that outside of my question of why the Bush administration and Reps would support such a deal.
Whether the companies are government owned or privately owned in that country make little difference, if anything I'd venture that a government owned company would be more accountable.
Okay, that claim makes no sense given the context. The gov't is essentially a hereditary theocracy. That means there is absolutely no independent oversight capability by anyone with regards to how the companies that gov't owns is run. What mechanism for accountability would there be?
The UK goverment Fuels, through its arms trade, many of the civil wars/conflicts around the world. they are not squeaky clean.
You misunderstood, the UAE has been cited for mistreating its employees and engaging in bad hiring practices, which would not be allowed for western nations. I wasn't discussing anything outside of the realm that they'd actually have control of regarding port management.
right.... so why the objection?
The potential for problems to arise is greater with such a nationalized company. It will force us to increase our own security measures and thus cost us more.
I would assume that if they are employing in your country they would have to abide by labour laws in your country.
First of all they have people working in their own country. A person working in the US under control of a company from that country may have a glass ceiling or even an iron one.
Second, there is no sense that they must abide by labor laws. The Bush administration has sought and if I remember correctly won the right to allow faith based groups to operate against US labor laws. Given that it is a theocratic state, I don't see why they could not be considered a faith based agency.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 11:09 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 12:37 PM Silent H has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 27 of 91 (289777)
02-23-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
02-23-2006 11:04 AM


1) I was in large part arguing this from the original Rep perspective regarding security within the US. They do play doomsday scenarios, so that they didn't here is really a switcheroo. Control the borders against mexicans because we may be overrun by terrorists, but remove control of ports to a theocratic nation? There seems to be a major inconsistency here and I was trying to draw that out.
2) I was also pointing out that the practical elements actually gave greater freedom to a foreign power controlling our ports, than US adults engaged in free speech of a sexual nature. We are willing to tolerate privacy and autonomy of a foreign power operating on our soil, but not to US citizens simply trying to communicate about something that can't result in mass destruction? That's another inconsistency I was trying to draw out.
I think a general thing to point out about this obvious hypocricy is not just that it is true but that it is out there wide open for everyone to see. There isn't even an attempt to do anything more than claim consistency and focus within this administration. The first thing that this reminds me of when I think about it is the behavior of many of the creationists on this board who just declare their position as true. The administration just declares itself as consistent despite the clear fact that they are first of liars and second totally inept beyond comparison.
The more I understand about this deal though the more scary it is beginning to look starting off with the info crash linked to from the AP report. Why the heck are they getting special treatment regarding keeping records on US soil? That DOES make me very skeptical.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 11:04 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:59 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 28 of 91 (289782)
02-23-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jazzns
02-23-2006 11:50 AM


You know, if this country (UAE) represents such a HUGE security risk and it is so detrimental to US interestes, you guys would have no objection to the Military going in and taking care of business in the UAE right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2006 11:50 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2006 12:08 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 12:12 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 1:38 PM Tal has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 29 of 91 (289785)
02-23-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:59 AM


I didn't say anything about the UAE. If you had actually read my previous post you would have noticed that I spoke out against a knee jerk reaction to this on the grounds of the country being in the middle east.
That still does not excuse the incompetence of the government. They are blatantly inept and seemingly don't even care enough about what might be important to the American people to bother to tell us about it.
Why did whoever in the administration not think this issue might raise a controversy?
Why is the new company given privelidges that others do not regarding the storage of documents that my later fall under jurisdiction of a US court order?
It has nothing to do with the fact that the company is from the UAE. It has to do with the treatement of the issue by the administration and their fumbling of responsibility to deal with issues that are certain to raise criticisms rather than having them be a suprise to their constituency. And please don't say that , "they didn't know" because all that does it make the situation worse.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:59 AM Tal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 91 (289786)
02-23-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tal
02-23-2006 11:59 AM


You know, if this country (UAE) represents such a HUGE security risk and it is so detrimental to US interestes, you guys would have no objection to the Military going in and taking care of business in the UAE right?
Just because I wouldn't trust a guy with the keys to my house doesn't mean I need to go over to his house with a gun and put one in his forhead.
But I guess the idea that there's a differential scale of threat didn't occur to you. Either we drop our drawers for somebody or we take 'em out. How simple it is in the world of the Republican.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:59 AM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024