jenfly00 0 #76 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuote It's the penalty Bush is paying for running the most secretive and furtive administration in recent history. If he has nothing to hide, why the secrecy? (I actually stole that line from some right wing source who was writing in favor of warrantless wiretaps). Tell me again how many FBI records Mrs Bush has "misplaced", will you? Also annotate the number of illegal IRS audits of Bush's political / personal opponents, if you would. Place yourself in an undefendable position with your unwavering support of your beloved ultra right, get sacked for a loss, try and salvage something by narrowing it down to 'my sole point' and when all else fails, pull out the tired ol 'but clinton ...' gambit. Your hot air was better than this stale fart. Still waiting for the facts of why this is good for America.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #77 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote It's the penalty Bush is paying for running the most secretive and furtive administration in recent history. If he has nothing to hide, why the secrecy? (I actually stole that line from some right wing source who was writing in favor of warrantless wiretaps). Tell me again how many FBI records Mrs Bush has "misplaced", will you? Also annotate the number of illegal IRS audits of Bush's political / personal opponents, if you would. You are missing the point (deliberately, I'm sure). Operating behind a veil of secrecy in a supposedly open government society is ALWAYS going to make people suspicious. And, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. Seems to me they are being very open about the reasons for this management contract. They may not have anticiapated the furor it has caused (mostly ginned up by misinformation in the press) but in recent days they have been very open. Edited to add: Talk about misinformation, have you read the title of this thread? There is no port purchase proposed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 February 23, 2006 QuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. Not blindly believing innuendo and rumor != "believing the sun shines from Bush's a$$". However, I submit that blindly believing every rumor that comes down the pike, so long as it makes the Republicans look bad = "believing the sun shines from the Democrats' a$$es".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #79 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Edited to add: Talk about misinformation, have you read the title of this thread? There is no port purchased proposed. I didn't say there was. I am not responsible for the title of the thread. Personally, (1) I don't have a problem with the deal, AND (2) I still don't trust Bush's motives. They are not mutually exclusive positions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #80 February 23, 2006 QuoteStill waiting for the facts of why this is good for America. LOL - still couldn't understand my statement? Let me try it one MORE time, just for you, since the ball is STILL in your court. IF (that means that there is a possibility that it could be right or wrong) Bush (that guy you love to blindly hate) is (you'll have to look up the Clinton definition for this one, I guess) getting (aquiring something) paid (receiving remuneration for work) show (reveal; make plain, provide) me (mnealtx) some (amount between none and all) proof (evidence of an act ) Hopefully this little explanation has cleared this up for you - but knowing your blind hatred of anything right of Marx, I doubt it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #81 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Edited to add: Talk about misinformation, have you read the title of this thread? There is no port purchased proposed. QuoteI didn't say there was. I am not responsible for the title of the thread. I didn't mean to imply you were. I was just pointing out that most of the furor was due to misinformation, and cited the thread title as an example. QuotePersonally, (1) I don't have a problem with the deal, Nor do I. Quote AND (2) I still don't trust Bush's motives. No surprise there. QuoteThey are not mutually exclusive positions. Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #82 February 23, 2006 >so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #83 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Yup, there sure is legal proof. Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #84 February 23, 2006 >Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned? I've said nothing about payoffs. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #85 February 23, 2006 Sorry - not you personally, but posters at large.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #86 February 23, 2006 What about the real issue - National Security. Are you saying you support turning over operational management of our ports to a country with known ties to terrorists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #87 February 23, 2006 QuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #88 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... A pleasure to be of service... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #89 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! And how about OJ running a battered womens' shelter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #90 February 23, 2006 A very apropos quote from Bush today: "And so people don't need to worry about (port) security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumperboy357 0 #91 February 23, 2006 I didn't read all the posts but I'm still going to enter my opinion on this one. I'm typically behind President Bush and his administration but what the FUCK is he thinking here? Allowing a country that has had ties to terrorism run 6 main ports in our country sounds well.......like asking for trouble!!! I just want to know what's in it for Bush? Why is he pushing so hard for this? It's only a matter of time before we see another attack on U.S. soil so why leave the front door open? Why should the UAE even make money by running our ports? Don't many middle east nations get enough of my tax dollars in foreign aid or oil? Those tax dollars should stay here to take care of our own people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #92 February 24, 2006 QuoteI'm all for a free market, however, I think certain things, such as our ports, should be U.S. owned no matter what. It just makes sense. "I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #93 February 24, 2006 >One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie >that you take the good with the bad. Perhaps. But if that's the case we don't have a free market. We have laws against pollution, monopolies, unfair business practices, fraud etc. One might argue that that's not a free market; you should let the market itself adjust. For example, if a New England power company pollutes a lot, a lot of people die, they make less money (fewer customers) and go out of business. If a monopoly takes over milk production, we would all become outraged, switch to juice - and they would go out of business, thus fixing the problem. However, I think that rules like the above actually _help_ a free market function correctly, if they are applied evenly. A monopoly can cause all sorts of havoc in a capitalist system, and thus laws against them can help it function more like we think it should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #94 February 24, 2006 Quote"I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. It's not absolute. A country has to protect its borders/ports/airways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #95 February 24, 2006 I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #96 February 24, 2006 >In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more >ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government >will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Except: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. b) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. c) Your basic theory is true of any company at all, from Halliburton to a UAE-based company to a smaller private US company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #97 February 24, 2006 QuoteExcept: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. The Halliburton “family” of businesses and the government of Pakistan have been operating “over there” under conditions where it’s relatively easy for them to avoid intense scrutiny and the business environment is different than stateside. You can bet that the UAE port operator is already under the microscope and will be continually subject to examination and investigation at all times by state and local authorities as well as by the media and private organizations hostile to the operator. Quoteb) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. UAE GDP ranges between ~$75 to $105 billion depending on how you measure. Based on the economic damage amounts attributed to the World Trade Center attacks, a catastrophic terrorism incident at one or more US ports could easily exceed these GDP figures as a result of the costs and damages that would be paid out by the port operator and UAE government and the loss in terms of lost revenues. I don’t see it happening. The US and UAE are presently discussing a free trade agreement between the countries, and the UAE is forward-looking for its region and would not risk exposing its economy to the massive shock that would likely obtain from a significant terrorism incident at a US port being operated by the UAE company. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #98 February 24, 2006 Quote I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! I favor it too. Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in office and are evil when it's a Republican. QuoteJoint Statement on US UAE Relations THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release May 12, 1998 JOINT STATEMENT U.S.-UAE Relations At the invitation of President Clinton, His Highness Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, is visiting Washington, where he met with the President in the Oval Office today. Crown Prince Shaikh Khalifa conveyed the greetings of H.H. President Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan and the people of the UAE to President Clinton and the American people. The Crown Prince then met separately with Vice President Gore, who hosted a working lunch. He is due to meet later with key Cabinet members and Congressional leaders. The relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America is defined by strong bilateral ties. Today, this relationship has expanded greatly to include mutually productive cooperation in the fields of commerce, educational exchange, and security. The present close ties have become instrumental in safeguarding the security and stability of the Gulf region. Over the past decades, the two sides have forged substantial economic links as a result of numerous initiatives by government and private sectors on both sides. Thousands of Americans live and work in the United Arab Emirates; thousands of UAE nationals study in the United States, and thousands more visit here each year. The UAE has become the United States' second-largest market in the Gulf region. Growing numbers of American firms are doing business and are based in the UAE because of its excellent infrastructure and welcoming environment. While the regional environment has spawned a number of new threats in the last three decades, the strategic consultations between the UAE and the United States remain a key factor in securing the national interests of both countries. The signing of the 1994 Defense Cooperation Agreement is indicative of the strength of the relationship between the two sides. Both sides agreed to encourage trade, investment, economic, and cultural cooperation and in this context, agreed on the desirability of reaching mutual agreements to cover these topics. The two sides discussed recent developments in Iran. They shared the hope that the new Iranian leadership would change those policies that threaten the peace and stability of the region; at the same time, they agreed that the new Iranian Government has yet to prove it has abandoned its threatening policies. An important issue that remains unresolved is the continued occupation by Iran of three islands, Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb. The UAE and the United States continue to reiterate their call for the peaceful resolution of the issue either through bilateral talks or through the International Court of Justice. Both governments expressed great sympathy for the Iraqi people and call upon Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The two sides agreed that UN Security Council Resolutions must be enforced. They also made it clear that the Iraqi Government bears full responsibility for the misery of the Iraqi people. Both sides affirmed that there is an urgent need to achieve genuine progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process in order to reach a lasting, comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East. Such a comprehensive peace should be based upon UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the land-for-peace principle in addition to the fulfillment by both sides of their obligations under the Oslo Accords. The UAE side expressed its concern about the Israeli Government's policy toward the peace process and the rights of the Palestinian people. The two sides also agreed on the importance of achieving progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Today, Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore announced the UAE's acquisition of 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters from the United States as a significant step towards strengthening the UAE's defense capabilities. In essence, the deal will enable the UAE to achieve a credible and effective defense through the establishment of a conventional deterrent capability based on quality. This acquisition will allow the two countries not only to add a significant stabilizing element to the overall strategic balance in the region but also to further strengthen and fortify the already close security relations between the two countries. President Clinton conveyed his sincere greetings to the President of the UAE, His Highness Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan, wishing him good health and long life. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/051298-joint-statement-on-us-uae-relations.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #99 February 24, 2006 >Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #100 February 24, 2006 Quote>Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Score one for the home team. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #80 February 23, 2006 QuoteStill waiting for the facts of why this is good for America. LOL - still couldn't understand my statement? Let me try it one MORE time, just for you, since the ball is STILL in your court. IF (that means that there is a possibility that it could be right or wrong) Bush (that guy you love to blindly hate) is (you'll have to look up the Clinton definition for this one, I guess) getting (aquiring something) paid (receiving remuneration for work) show (reveal; make plain, provide) me (mnealtx) some (amount between none and all) proof (evidence of an act ) Hopefully this little explanation has cleared this up for you - but knowing your blind hatred of anything right of Marx, I doubt it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #81 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Edited to add: Talk about misinformation, have you read the title of this thread? There is no port purchased proposed. QuoteI didn't say there was. I am not responsible for the title of the thread. I didn't mean to imply you were. I was just pointing out that most of the furor was due to misinformation, and cited the thread title as an example. QuotePersonally, (1) I don't have a problem with the deal, Nor do I. Quote AND (2) I still don't trust Bush's motives. No surprise there. QuoteThey are not mutually exclusive positions. Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #82 February 23, 2006 >so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #83 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Yup, there sure is legal proof. Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #84 February 23, 2006 >Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned? I've said nothing about payoffs. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #85 February 23, 2006 Sorry - not you personally, but posters at large.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #86 February 23, 2006 What about the real issue - National Security. Are you saying you support turning over operational management of our ports to a country with known ties to terrorists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #87 February 23, 2006 QuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #88 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... A pleasure to be of service... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #89 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! And how about OJ running a battered womens' shelter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #90 February 23, 2006 A very apropos quote from Bush today: "And so people don't need to worry about (port) security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumperboy357 0 #91 February 23, 2006 I didn't read all the posts but I'm still going to enter my opinion on this one. I'm typically behind President Bush and his administration but what the FUCK is he thinking here? Allowing a country that has had ties to terrorism run 6 main ports in our country sounds well.......like asking for trouble!!! I just want to know what's in it for Bush? Why is he pushing so hard for this? It's only a matter of time before we see another attack on U.S. soil so why leave the front door open? Why should the UAE even make money by running our ports? Don't many middle east nations get enough of my tax dollars in foreign aid or oil? Those tax dollars should stay here to take care of our own people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 1 #92 February 24, 2006 QuoteI'm all for a free market, however, I think certain things, such as our ports, should be U.S. owned no matter what. It just makes sense. "I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #93 February 24, 2006 >One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie >that you take the good with the bad. Perhaps. But if that's the case we don't have a free market. We have laws against pollution, monopolies, unfair business practices, fraud etc. One might argue that that's not a free market; you should let the market itself adjust. For example, if a New England power company pollutes a lot, a lot of people die, they make less money (fewer customers) and go out of business. If a monopoly takes over milk production, we would all become outraged, switch to juice - and they would go out of business, thus fixing the problem. However, I think that rules like the above actually _help_ a free market function correctly, if they are applied evenly. A monopoly can cause all sorts of havoc in a capitalist system, and thus laws against them can help it function more like we think it should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #94 February 24, 2006 Quote"I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. It's not absolute. A country has to protect its borders/ports/airways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #95 February 24, 2006 I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #96 February 24, 2006 >In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more >ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government >will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Except: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. b) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. c) Your basic theory is true of any company at all, from Halliburton to a UAE-based company to a smaller private US company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #97 February 24, 2006 QuoteExcept: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. The Halliburton “family” of businesses and the government of Pakistan have been operating “over there” under conditions where it’s relatively easy for them to avoid intense scrutiny and the business environment is different than stateside. You can bet that the UAE port operator is already under the microscope and will be continually subject to examination and investigation at all times by state and local authorities as well as by the media and private organizations hostile to the operator. Quoteb) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. UAE GDP ranges between ~$75 to $105 billion depending on how you measure. Based on the economic damage amounts attributed to the World Trade Center attacks, a catastrophic terrorism incident at one or more US ports could easily exceed these GDP figures as a result of the costs and damages that would be paid out by the port operator and UAE government and the loss in terms of lost revenues. I don’t see it happening. The US and UAE are presently discussing a free trade agreement between the countries, and the UAE is forward-looking for its region and would not risk exposing its economy to the massive shock that would likely obtain from a significant terrorism incident at a US port being operated by the UAE company. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #98 February 24, 2006 Quote I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! I favor it too. Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in office and are evil when it's a Republican. QuoteJoint Statement on US UAE Relations THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release May 12, 1998 JOINT STATEMENT U.S.-UAE Relations At the invitation of President Clinton, His Highness Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, is visiting Washington, where he met with the President in the Oval Office today. Crown Prince Shaikh Khalifa conveyed the greetings of H.H. President Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan and the people of the UAE to President Clinton and the American people. The Crown Prince then met separately with Vice President Gore, who hosted a working lunch. He is due to meet later with key Cabinet members and Congressional leaders. The relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America is defined by strong bilateral ties. Today, this relationship has expanded greatly to include mutually productive cooperation in the fields of commerce, educational exchange, and security. The present close ties have become instrumental in safeguarding the security and stability of the Gulf region. Over the past decades, the two sides have forged substantial economic links as a result of numerous initiatives by government and private sectors on both sides. Thousands of Americans live and work in the United Arab Emirates; thousands of UAE nationals study in the United States, and thousands more visit here each year. The UAE has become the United States' second-largest market in the Gulf region. Growing numbers of American firms are doing business and are based in the UAE because of its excellent infrastructure and welcoming environment. While the regional environment has spawned a number of new threats in the last three decades, the strategic consultations between the UAE and the United States remain a key factor in securing the national interests of both countries. The signing of the 1994 Defense Cooperation Agreement is indicative of the strength of the relationship between the two sides. Both sides agreed to encourage trade, investment, economic, and cultural cooperation and in this context, agreed on the desirability of reaching mutual agreements to cover these topics. The two sides discussed recent developments in Iran. They shared the hope that the new Iranian leadership would change those policies that threaten the peace and stability of the region; at the same time, they agreed that the new Iranian Government has yet to prove it has abandoned its threatening policies. An important issue that remains unresolved is the continued occupation by Iran of three islands, Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb. The UAE and the United States continue to reiterate their call for the peaceful resolution of the issue either through bilateral talks or through the International Court of Justice. Both governments expressed great sympathy for the Iraqi people and call upon Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The two sides agreed that UN Security Council Resolutions must be enforced. They also made it clear that the Iraqi Government bears full responsibility for the misery of the Iraqi people. Both sides affirmed that there is an urgent need to achieve genuine progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process in order to reach a lasting, comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East. Such a comprehensive peace should be based upon UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the land-for-peace principle in addition to the fulfillment by both sides of their obligations under the Oslo Accords. The UAE side expressed its concern about the Israeli Government's policy toward the peace process and the rights of the Palestinian people. The two sides also agreed on the importance of achieving progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Today, Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore announced the UAE's acquisition of 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters from the United States as a significant step towards strengthening the UAE's defense capabilities. In essence, the deal will enable the UAE to achieve a credible and effective defense through the establishment of a conventional deterrent capability based on quality. This acquisition will allow the two countries not only to add a significant stabilizing element to the overall strategic balance in the region but also to further strengthen and fortify the already close security relations between the two countries. President Clinton conveyed his sincere greetings to the President of the UAE, His Highness Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan, wishing him good health and long life. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/051298-joint-statement-on-us-uae-relations.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #99 February 24, 2006 >Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #100 February 24, 2006 Quote>Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Score one for the home team. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,070 #82 February 23, 2006 >so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! Yup, there sure is legal proof. Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #84 February 23, 2006 >Now, where's that legal proof about the 'payoffs' that have been mentioned? I've said nothing about payoffs. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 February 23, 2006 Sorry - not you personally, but posters at large.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #86 February 23, 2006 What about the real issue - National Security. Are you saying you support turning over operational management of our ports to a country with known ties to terrorists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #87 February 23, 2006 QuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #88 February 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd, with the few exceptions of folks like yourself who apparently believe the Sun shines from Bush's a$$, they are suspicious. OK that was fucking funny.... I needed that this morning... A pleasure to be of service... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #89 February 23, 2006 Quote>so innuendo and accusation trump fact again . . . Not at all. Michael Jackson was PROVEN innocent of child-molestation charges; he'd be a great person to run a child-welfare organization. After all, there is legal proof he is not a child molester! And how about OJ running a battered womens' shelter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #90 February 23, 2006 A very apropos quote from Bush today: "And so people don't need to worry about (port) security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperboy357 0 #91 February 23, 2006 I didn't read all the posts but I'm still going to enter my opinion on this one. I'm typically behind President Bush and his administration but what the FUCK is he thinking here? Allowing a country that has had ties to terrorism run 6 main ports in our country sounds well.......like asking for trouble!!! I just want to know what's in it for Bush? Why is he pushing so hard for this? It's only a matter of time before we see another attack on U.S. soil so why leave the front door open? Why should the UAE even make money by running our ports? Don't many middle east nations get enough of my tax dollars in foreign aid or oil? Those tax dollars should stay here to take care of our own people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #92 February 24, 2006 QuoteI'm all for a free market, however, I think certain things, such as our ports, should be U.S. owned no matter what. It just makes sense. "I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #93 February 24, 2006 >One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie >that you take the good with the bad. Perhaps. But if that's the case we don't have a free market. We have laws against pollution, monopolies, unfair business practices, fraud etc. One might argue that that's not a free market; you should let the market itself adjust. For example, if a New England power company pollutes a lot, a lot of people die, they make less money (fewer customers) and go out of business. If a monopoly takes over milk production, we would all become outraged, switch to juice - and they would go out of business, thus fixing the problem. However, I think that rules like the above actually _help_ a free market function correctly, if they are applied evenly. A monopoly can cause all sorts of havoc in a capitalist system, and thus laws against them can help it function more like we think it should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #94 February 24, 2006 Quote"I'm all for a free market when it suits me" isn't a free market. One of the defining aspects of a free market is that it's free, ie that you take the good with the bad. It's not absolute. A country has to protect its borders/ports/airways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #95 February 24, 2006 I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #96 February 24, 2006 >In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more >ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government >will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Except: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. b) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. c) Your basic theory is true of any company at all, from Halliburton to a UAE-based company to a smaller private US company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #97 February 24, 2006 QuoteExcept: a) In this particular government, no one connected with the government gets much blame. Look at how vigorously Halliburton is defended even when they are found liable for various kinds of fraud. They will have an even greater incentive to overlook infractions if they really, really want them as an ally. Consider how much we have overlooked in Pakistan. The Halliburton “family” of businesses and the government of Pakistan have been operating “over there” under conditions where it’s relatively easy for them to avoid intense scrutiny and the business environment is different than stateside. You can bet that the UAE port operator is already under the microscope and will be continually subject to examination and investigation at all times by state and local authorities as well as by the media and private organizations hostile to the operator. Quoteb) The UAE is rolling in money; they are better situated than almost any other country out there to withstand such a loss. UAE GDP ranges between ~$75 to $105 billion depending on how you measure. Based on the economic damage amounts attributed to the World Trade Center attacks, a catastrophic terrorism incident at one or more US ports could easily exceed these GDP figures as a result of the costs and damages that would be paid out by the port operator and UAE government and the loss in terms of lost revenues. I don’t see it happening. The US and UAE are presently discussing a free trade agreement between the countries, and the UAE is forward-looking for its region and would not risk exposing its economy to the massive shock that would likely obtain from a significant terrorism incident at a US port being operated by the UAE company. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #98 February 24, 2006 Quote I favor the deal. In the event a terrorism incident does occur at one or more ports and the UAE operator is believed complicit the US government will exercise dominion and the UAE will suffer great financial loss. Private lawsuits alone could bankrupt the enterprise. That’s not in the interests of the operator. If anything, the UAE will bend over backwards to address the public’s concerns about port security issues. This is just another business deal in a global economy, it deserves less scrutiny than some transactions which American businesses have entered into with a certain rising Asian power. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! I favor it too. Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in office and are evil when it's a Republican. QuoteJoint Statement on US UAE Relations THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release May 12, 1998 JOINT STATEMENT U.S.-UAE Relations At the invitation of President Clinton, His Highness Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, is visiting Washington, where he met with the President in the Oval Office today. Crown Prince Shaikh Khalifa conveyed the greetings of H.H. President Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan and the people of the UAE to President Clinton and the American people. The Crown Prince then met separately with Vice President Gore, who hosted a working lunch. He is due to meet later with key Cabinet members and Congressional leaders. The relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America is defined by strong bilateral ties. Today, this relationship has expanded greatly to include mutually productive cooperation in the fields of commerce, educational exchange, and security. The present close ties have become instrumental in safeguarding the security and stability of the Gulf region. Over the past decades, the two sides have forged substantial economic links as a result of numerous initiatives by government and private sectors on both sides. Thousands of Americans live and work in the United Arab Emirates; thousands of UAE nationals study in the United States, and thousands more visit here each year. The UAE has become the United States' second-largest market in the Gulf region. Growing numbers of American firms are doing business and are based in the UAE because of its excellent infrastructure and welcoming environment. While the regional environment has spawned a number of new threats in the last three decades, the strategic consultations between the UAE and the United States remain a key factor in securing the national interests of both countries. The signing of the 1994 Defense Cooperation Agreement is indicative of the strength of the relationship between the two sides. Both sides agreed to encourage trade, investment, economic, and cultural cooperation and in this context, agreed on the desirability of reaching mutual agreements to cover these topics. The two sides discussed recent developments in Iran. They shared the hope that the new Iranian leadership would change those policies that threaten the peace and stability of the region; at the same time, they agreed that the new Iranian Government has yet to prove it has abandoned its threatening policies. An important issue that remains unresolved is the continued occupation by Iran of three islands, Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb. The UAE and the United States continue to reiterate their call for the peaceful resolution of the issue either through bilateral talks or through the International Court of Justice. Both governments expressed great sympathy for the Iraqi people and call upon Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The two sides agreed that UN Security Council Resolutions must be enforced. They also made it clear that the Iraqi Government bears full responsibility for the misery of the Iraqi people. Both sides affirmed that there is an urgent need to achieve genuine progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process in order to reach a lasting, comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East. Such a comprehensive peace should be based upon UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the land-for-peace principle in addition to the fulfillment by both sides of their obligations under the Oslo Accords. The UAE side expressed its concern about the Israeli Government's policy toward the peace process and the rights of the Palestinian people. The two sides also agreed on the importance of achieving progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Today, Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore announced the UAE's acquisition of 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters from the United States as a significant step towards strengthening the UAE's defense capabilities. In essence, the deal will enable the UAE to achieve a credible and effective defense through the establishment of a conventional deterrent capability based on quality. This acquisition will allow the two countries not only to add a significant stabilizing element to the overall strategic balance in the region but also to further strengthen and fortify the already close security relations between the two countries. President Clinton conveyed his sincere greetings to the President of the UAE, His Highness Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan, wishing him good health and long life. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/051298-joint-statement-on-us-uae-relations.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #99 February 24, 2006 >Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #100 February 24, 2006 Quote>Apparently they are our friends when there's Democrat President in > office and are evil when it's a Republican. As opposed to Saddam, who was our friend when we had a Republican president and our enemy when we had a Republican president. Well, at least they don't have the handicap of consistency to worry about. Score one for the home team. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
