How Do YOU Feel About The Possible Port Purchase and Why?

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

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.

Were the policies of Carter and Clinton in respect of Saddam consistent? Carter and Clinton were Democrats, weren't they?


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

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.

Then you're not "all for a free market". Sorry if this sounds overly pedantic, but I get really annoyed by Americans quoting chapter and verse about how free markets are the perfect solution. Except when it seems they might lose out. Then it's an incredibly quick volte-face to protectionism. cf steel, toyota.

If I tarred you with an overly-broad brush, I apologise.

[billvon 3,070]

>Were the policies of Carter and Clinton in respect of Saddam consistent?

Not really. Wait - could it be that BOTH sides have a problem with consistency? Could it be that sometimes both parties make mistakes?

Naah. Too hard to think about. Our side is great, yours is dumb!

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Still 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.

I always viewed ultra right wing party puppets and cold and unfeeling, but you really are quite ...emotional, aren't you?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Were the policies of Carter and Clinton in respect of Saddam consistent?

Not really. Wait - could it be that BOTH sides have a problem with consistency? Could it be that sometimes both parties make mistakes?

Naah. Too hard to think about. Our side is great, yours is dumb!

At the time of the press release, UAE was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda, but apparently it was OK to do business with them then. After 9/11, it appears they have chosen to side with the US against terrorism. In fact they are the major port in the region for servicing US warships. This involves loading containers on a daily basis. Had there been bad intent, I think there would have been an incident by now.

So apparently it's OK to do business with them when they are supporting terrorism as long as we have a Democrat for President, but once they denounce it, and we have a Republican President, they are just another bunch of Arabs who hate the US and want to kill us.

[rehmwa 2]

If there would be a democrat president and this happened, the same stuff would be happening. Just the roles reversed. Including the arguments on this board.

Do you really have an issue with this particular decision being 'double checked' in today's world? They don't have Bush on the stand, they have those leaders that made the actual call. And if Bush was directly involved in the decision, then why not also go into his decision making process as well?

As far as various congress people making political hay out it, biz as usual. It just causes inefficiencies while they make statements instead of ask questions.

As far as the wackos and the pres making a big deal out it in the usual partisan slant, who cares, if it's not this issue it's another.

edit: and if you want to have the "it's 100% politics" partisan slant on it: Dems will make a little hay, but it's more of the same old whiney "any bash in a storm" stuff (impressions are hard to break after all this time). Reps will make a lot of hay because it appeals to the same emotional base AND they have the 'appearance' of standing up against their party leaders to work it. In the end, the only person this can hurt is GWB. And he isn't up for reelection. And it'll help individual republican congresspeople a lot more than typical independent dems CPs.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

If there would be a democrat president and this happened, the same stuff would be happening. Just the roles reversed. Including the arguments on this board.

Except in this case it isn't a right left thing b/c many on the right are also against the deal.

Quote

Do you really have an issue with this particular decision being 'double checked' in today's world? They don't have Bush on the stand, they have those leaders that made the actual call. And if Bush was directly involved in the decision, then why not also go into his decision making process as well?

No problem with it being checked. If fact I'm glad it is b/c I think its' detractors are guilty of a gross over reaction. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in those opposed to it. Kind of like when Billvon posts that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam.

Quote

As far as various congress people making political hay out it, biz as usual. It just causes inefficiencies while they make statements instead of ask questions.

As far as the wackos and the pres making a big deal out it in the usual partisan slant, who cares, if it's not this issue it's another.

edit: and if you want to have the "it's 100% politics" partisan slant on it: Dems will make a little hay, but it's more of the same old whiney "any bash in a storm" stuff (impressions are hard to break after all this time). Reps will make a lot of hay because it appeals to the same emotional base AND they have the 'appearance' of standing up against their party leaders to work it. In the end, the only person this can hurt is GWB. And he isn't up for reelection. And it'll help individual republican congresspeople a lot more than typical independent dems CPs.

Agreed. If you recall I brought this exact same scenario up already.

[billvon 3,070]

>So apparently it's OK to do business with them when they are
>supporting terrorism as long as we have a Democrat for President, but
>once they denounce it, and we have a Republican President, they are just
>another bunch of Arabs who hate the US and want to kill us.

Who are you answering? I didn't say any of the above. Are you confusing me with someone who feels the need to defend democrats?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So apparently it's OK to do business with them when they are
>supporting terrorism as long as we have a Democrat for President, but
>once they denounce it, and we have a Republican President, they are just
>another bunch of Arabs who hate the US and want to kill us.

Who are you answering? I didn't say any of the above. Are you confusing me with someone who feels the need to defend democrats?

Sorry, I wasn't responding to you specifically. Just making a general observation.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

>Were the policies of Carter and Clinton in respect of Saddam consistent?

Not really. Wait - could it be that BOTH sides have a problem with consistency? Could it be that sometimes both parties make mistakes?

Naah. Too hard to think about. Our side is great, yours is dumb!

At the time of the press release, UAE was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda, but apparently it was OK to do business with them then. After 9/11, it appears they have chosen to side with the US against terrorism. In fact they are the major port in the region for servicing US warships. This involves loading containers on a daily basis. Had there been bad intent, I think there would have been an incident by now.

So apparently it's OK to do business with them when they are supporting terrorism as long as we have a Democrat for President, don't care a hoot about terrorist organizations like the IRA, but once theywe become victims ourselves and we denounce terrorism, and we have a Republican President, they are just another bunch of Arabs who hate the US and want to kill us.

That's better.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Were the policies of Carter and Clinton in respect of Saddam consistent?

Not really. Wait - could it be that BOTH sides have a problem with consistency? Could it be that sometimes both parties make mistakes?

Naah. Too hard to think about. Our side is great, yours is dumb!

At the time of the press release, UAE was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda, but apparently it was OK to do business with them then. After 9/11, it appears they have chosen to side with the US against terrorism. In fact they are the major port in the region for servicing US warships. This involves loading containers on a daily basis. Had there been bad intent, I think there would have been an incident by now.

So apparently it's OK to do business with them when they are supporting terrorism as long as we have a Democrat for President, don't care a hoot about terrorist organizations like the IRA, but once theywe become victims ourselves and we denounce terrorism, and we have a Republican President, they are just another bunch of Arabs who hate the US and want to kill us.

That's better.

Cute, but untrue. Did you forget about the 1st WTC bombing, the USS Cole and the Marine Corp Barracks in Beruit?

[kallend 2,106]

While I an not opposed to the deal, it occurs to me that Bush is just reaping what he sowed. For political advantage he has pushed his ill-advised war in black and white terms, and it's come back to bite him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

While I an not opposed to the deal, it occurs to me that Bush is just reaping what he sowed. For political advantage he has pushed his ill-advised war in black and white terms, and it's come back to bite him.

British and UAE companies have consummated a deal in the UK under UK law. The transaction was announced ex post facto. Political hay is being made of the deal by US politicians from the different parties because this serves their perceived political interests. I fail to see how Bush has sown anything in this case. Perhaps it's time for another Armenian thread or John Rich will indulge us with some new gun threads …


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

If there would be a democrat president and this happened, the same stuff would be happening. Just the roles reversed. Including the arguments on this board.

Actually, I think this deal would be even worse if it was made with anybody not named Bush in the white house. This deal may seem good right now while Bush is pres. There is no denying the influence his family has in the UAE. What truly scares me is four or five years down the road when the influence is gone and this discussion has been long forgotten.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

While I an not opposed to the deal, it occurs to me that Bush is just reaping what he sowed. For political advantage he has pushed his ill-advised war in black and white terms, and it's come back to bite him.

British and UAE companies have consummated a deal in the UK under UK law. The transaction was announced ex post facto. Political hay is being made of the deal by US politicians from the different parties because this serves their perceived political interests. I fail to see how Bush has sown anything in this case. Perhaps it's time for another Armenian thread or John Rich will indulge us with some new gun threads …


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Maybe you should spend some time with some non-lawyer non-politico average Americans and hear what they think about it (I did yesterday, at an airport). Bush IS reaping what he sowed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What truly scares me is four or five years down the road when the influence is gone and this discussion has been long forgotten.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure Bush will be more than happy to remain in office.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,070]

>I'm sure Bush will be more than happy to remain in office.

Ah, but by then the UAE will be our enemy and Bush will have forgotten all about it. People here on Speakers Corner will be saying things like "you don't want to invade to stop the UAE's WMD programs, even though they helped Bin Laden before he destroyed the WTC? Do you hate all americans, or just republicans?"

[happythoughts 0]

The local news view in Tampa.

1. Anyone who rejects the deal is called a racist.
2. Hillary Clinton speaks out against it. Nobody says jack. Why does she object to the Arabs, but not to the Chinese ?

During the Clinton admin, COSCO (a Chinese state-run company) was promoted by Bill Clinton personally as a good candidate to purchase ports in Long Beach and LA.

Was it the $300K that was given to the DNC by the Chinese? Maybe she is a racist, but willing to overlook it for cash. It does go along with the rest of her ethics.

Of course, to say anything against her would make someone part of the "secret right-wing conspiracy".

(There was a direct link to terrorism in the Chinese case. COSCO was caught shipping 2,000 AK-47s for sale in the LA.)

news

Quote

Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms said that while the UAE is an ally, news organizations have reported that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the nation as an operational and financial base.

"What you're being asked to do is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," she said. "We are being encouraged to ignore possible risks and questions raised by good and diligent people."

Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio pointedly asked if Storms was raising objections because Dubai Ports World is owned Arabs. "I think it's very important we deal with facts," she said. "Their ethnicity should not be a factor."

news

Quote

MIAMI BEACH, Florida (AP)-- U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Miami Beach on Friday where she said she's pleased the Bush administration and a United Arab Emirates company have agreed to delay the company's takeover of significant operations at six major American ports.

But the New York Democrat and former first lady said she is still opposed to the deal. She plans to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating U.S. ports.