Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 17:29
VIEWED: 8053
PAGE 3 of 6
Well, it's nice to see conservatives waking up to the fact that Bush has one loyalty: $$$$$
And that maybe some things transcend corporatism.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure that's his only loyalty. If you look at what happens when these guys get $$$ then they spend them on things, such as supporting international terrorism (in JEB's case) But then Jeb is PNAC, so he works for Cheney, or Cheney works for him. I'm never quite sure. Should I call someone a night of the british empire to top it off?
BTW, it's really true, but I don't have the links to prove it, JEB has been funding freedom fighters in south America. and he's in pnac, that's not debateable, his name is on the website.
But if Bush just wants money, why doesn't he just ask. If Bush stood up and said "I want a $100B supplemental for my retirement fund. It's not hush money. It's go away money. I'll go away if you give me my $100B of the people's dollars." And then we held a national referendum on it, not only would it pass overwhelmingly, but people would probably step up to pay the bill.
$100B is the estimated profit for all of Bush's friends to date, but the country is in $Ts of debt. I'd much rather just pay Bush and be done with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security
There's only one thing worth commenting about Piratejenny and this thread, and that is this....
Once again, she has it dead flat wrong. In no way, form or fashion what so ever is port SECURITY going to change hands here in the U.S.A. Only the operations are going to change hands, should this deal go through. The fact of the matter is that a Chinese company also considered taking over the business end of these ports, but decided against it. Why? Because they didn't want to deal w/ union employees. The company from the UAE plans to keep things as is, for the time being. No Arabs in control of Port Security.
Whether this deal is a good one or not, I cannot say. But one thing is utterly and completely certain.
piratejenny has her facts stone cold wrong. The rest is just mindless babble.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
...lets just stick with Bush has approved a company in Dubai with ties to Al qaeda to take over the security of U.S ports.
Didn't see anything in your links that established the company Dubai Ports World has any connection with Al Qaeda except that they have both been in the UAE.
DP does operate terminals around the world, though. Check their site.
http://www.dpiterminals.com/maincats.asp?CatID=1
If I'm missing something other than your conjecture, let me know.
BTW, I've been listening to BBC and the Washington Post, who both think this is more about political manuvering on the part of the Dems and far-right Republicans than about post security, which is handled by the Coast Guard and TSA, no matter who is running the port facilities.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But you can't seriously be taking this position that Al Qaeda and its backers are suddenly to be trusted.
Not sure how Dubai Ports World company has anything to do with Al Qaeda except they have both been in the same country. There have been active Al Qaeda cells in Britan, where the P&O, who currently runs the ports in question, is based. Woop.
Quote:
Here's a small piece of advice: And I apologize for the crudity, but I dont know a better way to say this: Remove your head from Bush's ass. Since the only other supporters of the idea his own staff, who, everyone knows right, have corrupt deals with the buyer, are two democrats Carter and Lieberman?
I disagree with Bush on a lot of stuff, but since I don't think he's evil incarnate I often get condemned as a heritic by the "everything is Bush's fault" segment here. Talk about reproductive rights, tax policy, the religious right, and see where I stand on these. I happen to agree with the Government's policy about running the ports.
Quote:
The UAE, a country I have great respect for, which is being so nice as to let us use their ports, for which we have rewarded them with this deal, in violation of US law, does not hold the appropriate status to own US ports.
Please link or post the source of this allegation
Quote:
I really have to suspect the motives of anyone who solidly sides with Bush all of the time.
I don't. Can't help it if the topics on which I disagree with him don't seem to come up much here.
Quote:
My suspicions of people who support Bush all the time are that they do not think for themselves, but fall into one of the following categories:
1. They are somehow in the direct pay of the administration, or their income relies on the support of the administration's policies.
Nope. Though you're not the first one to accuse me, and anyone else who doesn't hew to the "I hate Bush" dogma, of this.
Quote:
2. They get all of their information from members of group 1. (above) Sadly, as of late, this includes Hannity and O'Reilly
I get most of my info from the BBC World Service site, AP, local news, and the Washington Post. I wouldn't know Hannity from O'Reilly if they were standing naked in Macy's window.
Quote:
3. They are members of a Christian lunatic fringe who believes that Bush is the ruler who overcomes, as mentioned in the beginning of the revelation of Saint John the Divine.
Depending on my mood and who I'm talking to, I'm either a Militant Agnostic or a Frisbeetarian.
Quote:
And I don't mean this as an assault on you Geezer, I'm just saying, because I see it a lot. Just let go. Bush, he ain't the Messiah. He's just a bad pick for a candidate, and once you know how he was picked, you begin to doubt the whole thing, and once you doubt, you see all of the B^\\Sh*+ for what it is.
I don't mean this as an assault on you either, DT, but I believe that your stereotyper must be running on overboost with a shot of nitrous. I have no illusions about how government works, and as a Militant Agnostic I don't believe in any type of Messiah. I also don't believe in any type of Bush as Anti-Christ, which is what you and the other True Believers here spout as the Revealed Word. Perhaps you should check your own shoes for dogma doo.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am just going to step in here and say something that might have been said. When I first heard this I thought: "Why are Americans not running American ports?!" The truth is like 80% of the US ports are controlled by foreign interests. So, technically this has been a practice that has been going on for quit sometime. Muslim, Japans,whatever. It is still a foreign interest controlling an American port which has been going on for sometime. We can worry about terrorism but if foreign interests are controlling American ports then it is still a foreign interest controlling an American port. It is just because the company is from Middle east.
Also, if this was denied then it might effect foreign trade. Come on Oil prices are skyrocketing and that is driving up costs. Then we can only imagine what a boycott on American made or shipped goods would do to our economy.
Just a thought!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh also it is not like they Dubie (Sp) would control all them just some of them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
This is just not true. Security would be one of the responsibilities of the company. Bush says that that would be 'overseen' by the coast guard, but that's really just in theory. In reality, it's potentially a revolving door.
Also, and this is the big issue for me, we're missing the point. All of us.
This isn't about terrorism. This company let AlQaeda in an out, sure, but the real revolving door is drugs. This whole deal is about drugs. Anyone of the republicans over here surely is aware of the Clinton drug ring, certainly team pirate knows about this, and the republicans might not know it, but Bush is in the coke biz himself, and fine, say your babble, spout your precious leader line, but I know people who went to college with him, and Bush tried to sell him coke then. Anyway, Bush/Clinton/Drugs. Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Drugs. UAE/America/Columbia, Drugs/Drugs/Drugs. I hope this keeps it simple. Big revolving door of drugs. Whether or not you accept that Bush is in on it, this drug threat is real, and if you do accept it, then this conclusion is obvious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not sure how Dubai Ports World company has anything to do with Al Qaeda except they have both been in the same country. There have been active Al Qaeda cells in Britan, where the P&O, who currently runs the ports in question, is based. Woop.
Okay, apologies for my ranting in another thread, I was really mad. The thing is, there are zero republicans as of yet backing this deal. None. Two democrats and a Bush/Cheney, whatever that is. But no one from the GOP in the house or senate.
Quote:
I disagree with Bush on a lot of stuff, but since I don't think he's evil incarnate I often get condemned as a heritic by the "everything is Bush's fault" segment here. Talk about reproductive rights, tax policy, the religious right, and see where I stand on these. I happen to agree with the Government's policy about running the ports.
Myself I'm right to life, in favor of the tax breaks, think they don't go far enough, and think that the religious right are basically good people. To me, Bush is appalling in spite of these things, not because of them.
It's just you, Hero, Auraptor, and the now gone, where did he go Lynch, seem to support the prez when he's all alone and no one in congress will.
Everything is not Bush's fauly. Bush is even a non-entity. Everything is not Cheney's fault, but he's a terrible leader. He's not as bad as probably even the average democrat, but he's worse than virtually everyone else.
Quote:
Quote:Please link or post the source of this allegation
The UAE, a country I have great respect for, which is being so nice as to let us use their ports, for which we have rewarded them with this deal, in violation of US law, does not hold the appropriate status to own US ports.
Oh, I don't have a link. My brother is actually an expert in the field. By this I do not mean that he knows a lot about it, I mean that the UN consults him on these issues, as do govts in eastern europe. He told me this over the phone, I'm absolutely certain that he's
right about it. The logic is that we have separate status for various nations. Only England and I think Japan, Korea, and a few others, Canada, hold our top status, which is the only level at which they can be trusted with issues of national security. I'm sure it would also
be a breach to put China in charge, but they probably hold a higher level than the UAE.
I really have nothing against the UAE. I've never been, but a friend of mine worked there and raved about it. I have nothing but repect for these guys based on what I've heard. But Al Qaeda was operating under their noses, so at the very least, they're not thorough
enough, and there are what will likely prove credible allegations of UAE funding of Al Qaeda, at the very least far more credible than any allegations of Saddam Hussein connections. Al Qaeda is an Arabian organization with Arabian peninsular support. They have
no real connection to Iraq, and any connection with Iraq is really secondary. The hard cold fact is these guys are routed in the dead see, and all of their base countries are fairly nearby.
Quote:
I really have to suspect the motives of anyone who solidly sides with Bush all of the time.Quote:
I don't. Can't help it if the topics on which I disagree with him don't seem to come up much here.
You can. Just try bringing them up. It will add to your credibility.
My current positoin, which changes, is completely on the level, I think the Bush admin is a fascist institution. Objectively.
We always have to be on the watch for it, it's always possible we are the enemy. At the moment, I can't say we're there yet, but we're definitely moving away from the founding fathers and towards the soviet union.
Quote:
Nope. Though you're not the first one to accuse me, and anyone else who doesn't hew to the "I hate Bush" dogma, of this.
Another helpful suggestion. Stop playing the victim. You're guy rules the known world. It's not like you're the underdog. It's not a dogma. I'm not coming from
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security
There's only one thing worth commenting about Piratejenny and this thread, and that is this....
Once again, she has it dead flat wrong. In no way, form or fashion what so ever is port SECURITY going to change hands here in the U.S.A. Only the operations are going to change hands, should this deal go through. The fact of the matter is that a Chinese company also considered taking over the business end of these ports, but decided against it. Why? Because they didn't want to deal w/ union employees. The company from the UAE plans to keep things as is, for the time being. No Arabs in control of Port Security.
Whether this deal is a good one or not, I cannot say. But one thing is utterly and completely certain.
piratejenny has her facts stone cold wrong. The rest is just mindless babble.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
security is still at issue here, it doesn't matter wether the coastguard is still in charge of the security or not, buy letting a middle eastern courntry with ties to Al Queda own/ run our ports compromises our security,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME