Dubai Ports selling out

[BigSqwert]

Would it have been OK after 9/11 when the whole world held a favorable opinion of the US?

And like I stated already. I think it's a bad idea for a foreign state-owned company to control part of our infrastructure. So if it was after 9/11 or if it's 10 years from now I think it's a bad idea.

Edited February 22, 2006 by BigSqwert

[Steff]

Sorry if it's been asked.. but.. how did he not know about something this big..?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

 

Bush unaware of port deal until after approval

White House: President only learned recently of handover to Arab firm

 

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2006

 

WASHINGTON - President 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, the White House said Wednesday.

 

 

I got the impression from his press comments that he did know about it.

[kapkomet]

Sorry if it's been asked.. but.. how did he not know about something this big..?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

 

Bush unaware of port deal until after approval

White House: President only learned recently of handover to Arab firm

 

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2006

 

WASHINGTON - President 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, the White House said Wednesday.

I got the impression from his press comments that he did know about it. 

There's a lot more companies then just this one that have Arab influences and ownership. The only reason that this one got any attention is because there's anti-competetive lawsuits that were recently filed. As soon as someone got ahold of that, the 'connect the dots' was played into UAE is taking over our (six) ports. Ownership and operation are two totally different things.

[Controlled Chaos]

Then by your logic, you are either a hypocrite, or you favor racial profiling in general.  So since you are apparently OK with profiling, you are OK with cops targeting blacks?  This was your argument, by the way, that if you are against this deal, you are a hypocrite because it was profiling.

 

And do you have any evidence of airlines being fined for questioning 2 Arabs at once, or is that just an "illustration"?

 

I was against this deal, and am still against it, because the company is controlled by a government who seems OK with terrorism (and might even support it), and a company whose ports are obviously questionable in their security record.  And further, now learning more and more, it seems even more clear that this deal did not follow process, and was effected by some underhanded dealings without our own government.

 

I am in favor of profiling at times....hence why I wasn't speaking of myself in calling people hypocrites. I think most here could have put that together.

 

No it wasn't an illustration....

Linky

Were you aware that it was the policy of the Justice Department - and I'd like you to comment as to whether these continuities are still in place - before I go to Justice, were you aware that it was the policy and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory?

 

Cops targeting blacks cause they're black is a little extreme. Just as is grabbing every single arab looking person at an airport is extreme. However, when you add some factors in. Paid with cash...One way ticket...No checked baggage..young Arab male...then I'd say a couple extra questions are warranted.

 

Pulling over a car cause there are a group of blacks in it...NO, there is no reason for it.

 

Pulling over a car with a group of blacks in it looking like gangbangers and trouble makers, driving around at 3:00 in the morning in the middle of suburbia?? yeah...pull em over and check em out.

 

If there's a group of white boys driving around an all black neighborhood, looking like gangbangers and trouble makers...guess what a cop is going to pull them over too. Cause they are there either for trouble or drugs. Same with hispanics. That's part of a cops job...to snuff out trouble before it happens..not after bodies start piling up.

 

It's all profiling. It's seeing something out of place and checking to see if it really is or isn't. It's done all the time. It's how crimes get stopped before the happen. It's how murders get stopped before they happen.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[Steff]

There's a lot more companies then just this one that have Arab influences and ownership.  The only reason that this one got any attention is because there's anti-competetive lawsuits that were recently filed.  As soon as someone got ahold of that, the 'connect the dots' was played into UAE is taking over our (six) ports.  Ownership and operation are two totally different things.

 

 

 

OK.

 

It's still a pretty big deal.

 

And he didn't know.

[kapkomet]

OK.

 

It's still a pretty big deal.

 

And he didn't know. 

Transactions like this go on all the time. So no, he probably didn't.

 

And no one else would have noticed, normally. This isn't exactly 'normal' but in a way it is in that as I just stated, these type of transactions, WITH Middle East countries, happen quite frequently.

[Rex Kickass]

OK.

 

It's still a pretty big deal.

 

And he didn't know. 

 

It's not really a big deal.

 

This was the result of a company merger - not the sale of the ports themselves.

[Steff]

It's not really a big deal.

 

This was the result of a company merger - not the sale of the ports themselves.

 

 

Ahh.. I see.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's not really a big deal.

 

This was the result of a company merger - not the sale of the ports themselves.

 

 

I heard about that aspect of it on CNBC. That takes some of the edge off of it for me but it still makes me uneasy.

[Balta1701]

Transactions like this go on all the time.  So no, he probably didn't. 

 

And no one else would have noticed, normally.  This isn't exactly 'normal' but in a way it is in that as I just stated, these type of transactions, WITH Middle East countries, happen quite frequently.

However, as I showed a little bit earlier...normal procedures for approval, as required by law since 1993, weren't followed in this case. So while Bush almost certainly didn't know about it before it became an issue, somehow it was allowed to sidestep the approval procedures outlined in the law, and the President is still willing to defend it with a veto threat. So there is certainly something odd going on.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am in favor of profiling at times....hence why I wasn't speaking of myself in calling people hypocrites.  I think most here could have put that together.

 

No it wasn't an illustration....

Linky

Were you aware that it was the policy of the Justice Department - and I'd like you to comment as to whether these continuities are still in place - before I go to Justice, were you aware that it was the policy and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory?

 

Cops targeting blacks cause they're black is a little extreme.  Just as is grabbing every single arab looking person at an airport is extreme.  However, when you add some factors in.  Paid with cash...One way ticket...No checked baggage..young Arab male...then I'd say a couple extra questions are warranted.

 

Pulling over a car cause there are a group of blacks in it...NO, there is no reason for it. 

 

Pulling over a car with a group of blacks in it looking like gangbangers and trouble makers, driving around at 3:00 in the morning in the middle of suburbia?? yeah...pull em over and check em out.

 

If there's a group of white boys driving around an all black neighborhood, looking like gangbangers and trouble makers...guess what a cop is going to pull them over too.  Cause they are there either for trouble or drugs.  Same with hispanics.  That's part of a cops job...to snuff out trouble before it happens..not after bodies start piling up.

 

It's all profiling.  It's seeing something out of place and checking to see if it really is or isn't.  It's done all the time.  It's how crimes get stopped before the happen.  It's how murders get stopped before they happen.

 

Gotcha. So, using your logic, you are a hypocrite - you think profiling is OK "at times".

 

And its not "all profiling". If I'm a cop (not a stretch for me, BTW), and I see a bunch of rough lookin' kids out cruisin' at 3am, I'll try to find a reason to stop them. But guess what? I do it on BEHAVIORAL factors, and other factors directly related to crime. For example, the kids are out at 3am. Maybe they look like they are drivind erratically and have been drinking. But what does NOT come into play is race - of the drivers or the neighborhood. Its illogical (see my earlier posts) and morally wrong.

 

And while prevention is indeed part of law enforcement, that prevention still needs to work within the bounds of the law. DWB does not fit that rule. So in the case of domestic security, race is and should be irrelevant. There have been a lot more terrorist acts commited on US soil by caucasians than Arabs.

 

And what evidence is there that this charge about the 2-Arab rule is true? I just highly doubt there is a rule about fining airlines for having over a maximum number of a certain race being checked. Its ridiculous. But if there is such a policy, I'll be the first in line to rally against it.

[kapkomet]

However, as I showed a little bit earlier...normal procedures for approval, as required by law since 1993, weren't followed in this case.  So while Bush almost certainly didn't know about it before it became an issue, somehow it was allowed to sidestep the approval procedures outlined in the law, and the President is still willing to defend it with a veto threat.  So there is certainly something odd going on.

This was a transaction between the UAE company and the main British firm who held the company. The US was a minor party - and I'm not sure that they were suspect to the same laws.

[Balta1701]

This was a transaction between the UAE company and the main British firm who held the company.  The US was a minor party - and I'm not sure that they were suspect to the same laws.

It shouldn't matter. An investigation and approval by the U.S. government should have been required in this matter according to the law in question.

 

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

 

    o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

 

    o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

That investigation which should have been required according to the letter of the law wasn't done, and thus far there's been no explanation as to why. I can't see any rational way to get around that provision.

[Controlled Chaos]

Gotcha.  So, using your logic, you are a hypocrite - you think profiling is OK "at times".

 

And its not "all profiling".  If I'm a cop (not a stretch for me, BTW), and I see a bunch of rough lookin' kids out cruisin' at 3am, I'll try to find a reason to stop them.  But guess what?  I do it on BEHAVIORAL factors, and other factors directly related to crime.  For example, the kids are out at 3am.  Maybe they look like they are drivind erratically and have been drinking.  But what does NOT come into play is race - of the drivers or the neighborhood.  Its illogical (see my earlier posts) and morally wrong.

 

And while prevention is indeed part of law enforcement, that prevention still needs to work within the bounds of the law.  DWB does not fit that rule.  So in the case of domestic security, race is and should be irrelevant.  There have been a lot more terrorist acts commited on US soil by caucasians than Arabs.

 

And what evidence is there that this charge about the 2-Arab rule is true?  I just highly doubt there is a rule about fining airlines for having over a maximum number of a certain race being checked.  Its ridiculous.  But if there is such a policy, I'll be the first in line to rally against it.

 

By profiling "at times" I meant profiling with "reasons" I then stated some those reasons, but you wanted to call me a hypocrite so you ignored them. ok fine.

 

You live in your utopian world where you only pull over kids if they are driving erratically...and I'll live in the real world where a cop looks at all factors...including skin color. See my cop would pull over 5 white kids in a car at 2:00 am in Cabrini Green...cause he knows something is up. Him pulling them over and getting them out of there might just save their lives. You on the other hand would let them drive around and maybe get killed cause they weren't driving erratically or doing anything else related to crime. or wait can we only make profiling examples with black people??

[NorthSideSox72]

By profiling "at times"  I meant profiling with "reasons"  I then stated some those reasons, but you wanted to call me a hypocrite so you ignored them.  ok fine.

 

You live in your utopian world where you only pull over kids if they are driving erratically...and I'll live in the real world where a cop looks at all factors...including skin color.  See my cop would pull over 5 white kids in a car at 2:00 am in Cabrini Green...cause he knows something is up.  Him pulling them over and getting them out of there might just save their lives.  You on the other hand would let them drive around and maybe get killed cause they weren't driving erratically or doing anything else related to crime.  or wait can we only make profiling examples with black people??

I saw your reasons, and they included race.

 

I don't live in Utopia. But I can most certainly choose the right thing to do.

 

I just don't even know what to say about your statements that a bunch of white kids are likely to get killed because they are near Cabrini. Its racist and ridiculous. I drive by Cabrini all the time, including at night. If you want to continue amplifying race as an issue, then by all means, make your decisions based on race. I for one refuse, and in the long run, I am convinced thats how we can make it a non-issue.

[Steff]

Cabrini today is a Disney ride from what it was 5 years ago. Just sayin..

[Controlled Chaos]

I saw your reasons, and they included race.

 

I don't live in Utopia.  But I can most certainly choose the right thing to do.

 

I just don't even know what to say about your statements that a bunch of white kids are likely to get killed because they are near Cabrini.  Its racist and ridiculous.  I drive by Cabrini all the time, including at night.  If you want to continue amplifying race as an issue, then by all means, make your decisions based on race.  I for one refuse, and in the long run, I am convinced thats how we can make it a non-issue.

 

I was in that car 16 years ago as a stupid teenager drving around, and yeah we had a real good chance of getting in some deep s*** if that cop hadn't gotten us out of there. So we'll go are seperate ways on the issue...

[samclemens]

this UAE company is going to be managing the ports. effectively, they will be scheduling who comes and goes. remember, the US coast guard and customs officers will still be there.

 

i wrongly spoke too fast earlier. i cant fully endorse the deal just yet. but as more facts come out, its affirming what i initialy thought.

[BigSqwert]

this UAE company is going to be managing the ports. effectively, they will be scheduling who comes and goes. remember, the US coast guard and customs officers will still be there.

 

i wrongly spoke too fast earlier. i cant fully endorse the deal just yet. but as more facts come out, its affirming what i initialy thought.

Well at least we can add 1 more person to the list of 6 people in this country who think this is a good idea.

[Rex Kickass]

Cabrini today is a Disney ride from what it was 5 years ago. Just sayin..

Cabrini doesn't even really exist anymore.

[bmags]

i don't think this is THAT big a deal personally. Or a deal at all. UAE IS one of best allies in the middle east and dubai is very american friendly, in fact in 10 years rich americans will be their income as they continue to redevelop their economy into tourism based.

[bmags]

Cabrini doesn't even really exist anymore.

I think she was implying that disney rides don't exist either

[Steff]

Cabrini doesn't even really exist anymore.

 

 

It's there. Tons of thugs still hang around the grounds. They are moving slow on the demolition and new construction. Though I was just pointing out that 5+ years ago it was very dangerous for any folks, especially white folks, who didn't "belong" there.

[AbeFroman]

Since our president says it is a good idea then I have no problem with it he seems to be strongly in favor of it so he must know what he is doing.

 

 

Minors must be the biggest Bush apologist on this board. Will he ever break step with the president? He seems to stand side-by-side with him on every single issue.

 

I am a democrat, and I generally try to respect the opinions of others. Most GOPers on this board tend agree with the president on most issue, but often disagree on some things. I respect their views and applaud them when they feel their own party is making a mistake. Likewise, I concur with the dems on many issues, but will call them out when I think they are wrong...

 

Does minors have any opinions of his own on any matters? Maybe thats his thing... go on the internet and spew Bush rhertoric acting like all dissentors are traitors. Maybe there is a future for minors in the Bush Press Office....

Edited February 22, 2006 by AbeFroman

[BigSqwert]

Minors must be the biggest Bush apologist on this board.  Will he ever break step with the president? He seems to stand side-by-side with him on every single issue. 

 

I am a democrat, and I generally try to respect the opinions of others.  Most GOPers on this board tend agree with the president on most issue, but often disagree on some things. 

 

Do you have any opinions of your own on any matters?  If not, there might be a future for minors in the Bush Press Office....

You've read my mind.