|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 66 of 154:
| 
Feb 24 19:30 UTC 2006 |
February 23, 2006
Join the Teamsters for .Goodbye Dubai: Secure America.s Ports. rallies at
ports around the country on Friday, February 24, 2006. The rallies will take
place at noon in each of the following cities:
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Charleston, South Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Detroit, Michigan
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
New Bedford, Massachusetts
New Orleans, Louisiana
Norfolk, Virginia
Oakland, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Port Hueneemee, California
Portland, Oregon
Savannah, Georgia
Seattle, Washington
Wilmington, Delaware
Call the Teamsters Port Division at (202) 624-8704 for specific location
information
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 154:
|
Feb 24 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Can anything opposed by the Gangsters... I mean, Teamsters, sorry...
really be so bad for the country?
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 154:
|
Feb 24 20:16 UTC 2006 |
How about your son dying in Baghdad.
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:02 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't aware the Teamsters had a position on American elementary
school kids dying in Baghdad. Are they for that, or against it?
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Depends if you think UAE is a threat to national security.
|
jep
|
|
response 71 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:18 UTC 2006 |
Is Baghdad in the UAE? I thought it was in Iraq.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:26 UTC 2006 |
You know McCarthy's daughter had Down's Syndrome. I think he suffocated her
with a pillow when she was 20 or something like that. He did it for his
country.
|
jep
|
|
response 73 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:40 UTC 2006 |
Someone is sure having a hard time following the conversation.
Could be me, I guess.
|
edina
|
|
response 74 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:42 UTC 2006 |
Of course it's you. You're a conservative, ergo you are wrong.
;-)
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:50 UTC 2006 |
My examples are from the GW book of "Shock, shag, and Awe" where we ignore
Mugabe in Zimbabwe and pretend Saddam is the baddest man on the Earth (cuz
we didn't find any WMD.) Meanwhile, all our foreign policies are actually
based on any money deals we can grab for our Arab business partners of the
past.
|
i
|
|
response 76 of 154:
|
Feb 26 13:35 UTC 2006 |
Considering how long this fuss has lasted, i don't see any explanation
except willfully ignorant efforts to look like stupid, bigoted jingoists
fitting the facts.
That's about a comforting as seeing the politicians involved show up at
Klan rallies and talk loudly about "protecting white rights".
Has any mainstream American media outlet shown any interest in the facts
yet, or is "Two-headed Bat-boy Born in Cave!" selling too well for them
to bother with any stupid facts?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 154:
|
Feb 26 19:50 UTC 2006 |
I'm still waiting for the facts. A few have come out, such as there will be
no change in local administration and employment - but I'm not sure how much
I believe what some have said to that effect. I'd like the whole story. I'm
not even sure *why* foreign companies manage any of our ports. Who is paying
who less to do what?
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 154:
|
Feb 27 06:27 UTC 2006 |
I just think it's funny to see Bush hoist by his own petard. When he
was busy making sure were were scared of those Ay-rabs he should have
thought about the effect it'd have on business deals with 'em.
|
klg
|
|
response 79 of 154:
|
Feb 27 12:11 UTC 2006 |
Although, it shows a lot more about, to quote Chas. Krauthammer, "those
idiots in Congress."
|
bru
|
|
response 80 of 154:
|
Feb 27 13:16 UTC 2006 |
Heard some more on this today from an ex-CIA analyst. He says that the CIA
knew Bin Laden was seeking a Nuke to use against the U.S. in 1996, and that
the CIA was in position 10 times to take him out before 9/11. Do you remember
the Clinton irdered air strike on the abandoned camp in 1999? Seems that
Osama was visiting some friends from the Emerite, and someone in the
Administration called and told the Emerites to move becasue they did not want
to have an Emirite prince killed in the strike. Tehy probably told Osama to
get out of town as well.
So the UAE not only funneled money and other support to the hijackers, they
were close friends of Bin Laden.
Now, that being said, they have done a lot since 9/11 to not perticipate in
any terrorist activities, adn even sent troops to Iraq to help the U.S.
effort.
They are also allowing Private U.S. companies to build a Spaceport for
Tourism. I have talked directly to a number of UAE princes and their military
excort last year, adn they struck me as ratehr canny businessmen, but very
attuned to their privelaged status. They do not think highly of americans,
but I get the feeling they don't think highly of anyone who is not an Emerite.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 81 of 154:
|
Feb 27 15:34 UTC 2006 |
>>>> So the UAE not only funneled money and other support to the hijackers,
they were close friends of Bin Laden.
So let's attack Iraq.
>>>>Now, that being said, they have done a lot since 9/11 to not perticipate
in any terrorist activities, adn even sent troops to Iraq to help the U.S.
effort.
That's like a blank statement , without any proof. How are you absolutely
certain that UAE doesn't support any terrorist activities. Are you similarly
certain about Saudi Arabia ? or Pakistan ? they also are helping the US with
their GOAT ( Global Onslaught Againts Terrorism ).
|
bru
|
|
response 82 of 154:
|
Feb 27 20:10 UTC 2006 |
I don't, other than the reports from the government and the news reports I
have seen and read.
Thats why I still don't like this idea, but I am not totally against it
either.
|
richard
|
|
response 83 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:10 UTC 2006 |
When the bipartisan anti-Dubai deal supporters in the Congress said
that if Bush vetoed their bill to kill the deal, that they would
override it. The funny thing is what the news reports said Bush was
planning to do if there was an override vote-- he was organizing his
staunchest supporters in congress to do a filibuster in the Senate.
Thats right, the same President Bush who wants to do away with the
filibuster, wanted to use it here. Is that hypocritical or what?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 84 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:24 UTC 2006 |
It's not hypocritical.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 85 of 154:
|
Feb 28 02:08 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, but it's a bit strange that Bush came
out full-bore in support of the deal, and then admitted/claimed that
he'd only just found out about it via news reports.
Which isn't to say I'm against (or for) this deal--I don't know enough
to give an intelligent opinion on it. The only thing that particularly
worries me (from both a security and economic perspective) is that the
more I hear, the more it sounds as though there was precious little
oversight before approving the deal. But, two thoughts: 1)I keep
hearing, "they won't have anything to do with port security", but
whether true or not, they would (presumably) have access to all sorts of
info bad guys would find extremely valuable, so whomever runs the port
darn well better be trustworthy. 2)I wonder if those who accuse the
deal's opponents of paranoia or racism would feel differently if the new
port boss was, say, Iran or North Korea or Libya.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 86 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:39 UTC 2006 |
Bush doesn't want to do away with the filibuster, he wants it eliminated
from proceedings involving Federal Judges and Supreme Court nominees.
How is seeking a filibuster on some legislation concerning ports
hypocritical?
|
klg
|
|
response 87 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:41 UTC 2006 |
ard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard
LIES
I have never heard President Bush support a ban on the filibuster,
except to say that in cases of advise and consent, judicial nominees
deserve a vote. Your typical Left Wing lies are showing.
gain -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES --
Richar
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 154:
|
Feb 28 17:26 UTC 2006 |
klg is lying again, bush and his people have openly advocated eliminating the
filibuster altogether.
and mcnally, how is it not hypocritical for bush to have suggested use of the
filibuster after having suggested its elimination?
|
klg
|
|
response 89 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:01 UTC 2006 |
If that is true, then RW ought to have no problem substantiating his
claim.
But he didn't.
|
twenex
|
|
response 90 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006 |
You just contradicted yourself. Learn to speak English. And i say that
condescendingly not as an American-hater, but as a cretin hater.
|