Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 You don't get it. This thing was not only masterminded by Airbus, but part of the plan was to make DPW spend a few billion so we could piss them off by being stupid, giving them an excuse to restrict basing rights. That proves they are all terrorists. 622178[/snapback] "Proves" they're terrorists? You're nuts. They only proof we ever needed was that they're sand !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 You don't get it. This thing was not only masterminded by Airbus, but part of the plan was to make DPW spend a few billion so we could piss them off by being stupid, giving them an excuse to restrict basing rights. That proves they are all terrorists. 622178[/snapback] But here's the punchline. DP doesn't really care that much for the US ports. The prize possessions are the Asian ports. So the AQ/Airbus conspiracy master plan worked perfectly, as even if DP doesn't get the undesired ports, the anti-Americanism that this broohaha is generating is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 <snip>the anti-Americanism that this broohaha is generating is priceless. 622188[/snapback] Since when has the US cared about anti-American broohahas (I always wondered how you spelled that!)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Since when has the US cared about anti-American broohahas (I always wondered how you spelled that!)? 622192[/snapback] My bad, in honor of March being National Beer Month, it should be spelled brewhaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 OK, let's try another angle here. Where does your "security threat" come from? Sure, anything is possible. Watch 24 or a Harrison Ford movie. Is it a teak paneled office 10,000 miles away? Or is it the docks and yards where things are loaded and unloaded? "Managed" here essentially means who is making the money off it. There are ALREADY people who barely or don't speak English working in ports (and other places) for Domestic-American owned companies. Think about maintenance and cleaning sub-contractors. Truck drivers. Etc. OK, just me being me - but if I wanted to infiltrate terrorist operatives into a port operation, the LAST company I'd use to do so would be an Arab one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 OK, let's try another angle here. Where does your "security threat" come from? Sure, anything is possible. Watch 24 or a Harrison Ford movie. Is it a teak paneled office 10,000 miles away? Or is it the docks and yards where things are loaded and unloaded? "Managed" here essentially means who is making the money off it. There are ALREADY people who barely or don't speak English working in ports (and other places) for Domestic-American owned companies. Think about maintenance and cleaning sub-contractors. Truck drivers. Etc. OK, just me being me - but if I wanted to infiltrate terrorist operatives into a port operation, the LAST company I'd use to do so would be an Arab one. 622208[/snapback] I don't think you understand, though. They're camel jockeys. That's the important thing. Don't lose sight of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I don't think you understand, though. They're camel jockeys. That's the important thing. Don't lose sight of that. 622246[/snapback] There was a time we referred to them as speed bumps, but that's probably not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 There was a time we referred to them as speed bumps, but that's probably not relevant. 622254[/snapback] I always liked the phrases "tank plinking" and "kill-me berms". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 You don't get it. This thing was not only masterminded by Airbus, but part of the plan was to make DPW spend a few billion so we could piss them off by being stupid, giving them an excuse to restrict basing rights. That proves they are all terrorists. 622178[/snapback] Now there is a plausible conspiracy theory. The Ghost still lurks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Now there is a plausible conspiracy theory. The Ghost still lurks! 622272[/snapback] Bah. It's not a real conspiracy theory until it involves the Yakuza and their Russian weather machine retreived from the MS Estonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Then perhaps you could provide a link to someone objecting to the deal on issues other than DP is owned by the government of UAE and that's a bad thing. Of course even though you're not against the port deal, you didn't hesitate to jump in with a response to my challenge to the critics of the DP deal on why DP is a bigger security threat than Emirates Air. Granted by your definition, since I wrote "I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal" and not "I've yet to hear an explanation from Mickey on the port deal," your response should not automatically lump you in with the general critics of the deal. You are just their counselor. I don't know what my **** has to do with this topic, but I tend to get hysterical at hypocrites. 621632[/snapback] You posed the question about why people would be more concerned about ports than airlines, silly me, I thought you were sincerely wondering why people would see them as different and were asking for some help so that you could better understand the criticism. I gave you some suggestions as to why they would think that to consider. I thought that might lead to a discussion of how those concerns could be shown to be unfounded but that isn't what happened. Instead, the next thing I know you have cast me in the role of Mr. anti-Dubai and are throwing "smelly brown people" comments at me. I have no opinion on this issue and in fact, have said that on more than one occasion: here and here Please show me where I was being a hypocrite and why, with a clear record of not having a position on this issue, you are so bent on pretending and misrepresenting that I am against Dubai? My only real concerns here are watching the Republican Party finally display a tiny crack in their otherwise monolithic and mindless unity. That and the one trick pony response of destroying anyone who dares to disagree. They can't simply be wrong, ill-informed or misguided. Nope, they have to be racists looking to smack around some smelly brown people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 And they are off, the hounds have been released...get 'im Mickey, get 'im! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I don't think you understand, though. They're camel jockeys. That's the important thing. Don't lose sight of that. 622246[/snapback] That's an important point. I'm glad Congress noticed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 And they are off, the hounds have been released...get 'im Mickey, get 'im! 622312[/snapback] Going back to the ports thingy, just what is supposedly going to get shipped in by container that is such a dire threat? If things are SO bad, why hasn't this been exploited yet? Does anyone here really think that organized terrorists are that stupid? Something horrific is just as likely, if not more so to come over the Peace Bridge. And who runs part of that? Hmmm...... .........Canadians...... Anyone look at the Arab ex-pat population around Toronto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Maybe you, or others (including, but not limited to, Mickey) can tell me how the House committee could discern in 10 days that DP is a security threat to move ahead with legislation. 622113[/snapback] They are using VABills math? The original 30 day review was "too quick" and "not enough time to properly review the situation." But a mere week and a half and these Congresscritters have had enough time to fully understand the issue and can make an informed decision. Ummm...yeah...OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Going back to the ports thingy, just what is supposedly going to get shipped in by container that is such a dire threat? If things are SO bad, why hasn't this been exploited yet? Does anyone here really think that organized terrorists are that stupid? Something horrific is just as likely, if not more so to come over the Peace Bridge. And who runs part of that? Hmmm...... .........Canadians...... Anyone look at the Arab ex-pat population around Toronto? 622339[/snapback] Oh oh. Now you've introduced a shiny bridge tangent to the port security thread. We're talking shipping containers on ships. Ships can't cross the Peace Bridge. Please stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 They are using VABills math? The original 30 day review was "too quick" and "not enough time to properly review the situation." But a mere week and a half and these Congresscritters have had enough time to fully understand the issue and can make an informed decision. Ummm...yeah...OK... 622343[/snapback] Oh I disagree, I think it is an informed decision, just not based on facts directly related to the proposed deal, but on political reality. Congresscritters deal with the attitudes of their isolationist minded constituents and facts are...there is an attitude in the hinterlands not to give Arab countries anything, especially when Dubai has had a dubious past. Easy to broad brush this issue...of course racist attitudes get amplified, but those with more open minds don't trust negotiating with folks in the next moment stab you in the back and support terrorists..smuggling. This is just normal business for them, but American politik doesn't like to play that way and will just as soon take their ball and go home even if they have to suck it up and pay some consequences. From a business this is a stupid decision, security, I have my doubts but am not expert, from a political standpoint it is an easy decision for me. Bush screwed up and didn't keep this deal under the rug. Too big not to get noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Oh oh. Now you've introduced a shiny bridge tangent to the port security thread. We're talking shipping containers on ships. Ships can't cross the Peace Bridge. Please stay on topic. 622356[/snapback] No, but they can cross the Great Lakes. I'd look much harder at the southern border. Not that the drug cartels are in cahoots with the terrorists or anything, spinning up in the triangle area, and have been successfully smuggling sh-- into the US longer than many here have been alive. Point of my blathering is that instead of hyperbole, address what what the actual threats are. AQ is loving this sh--. Let's force the US into spending billions on what amounts to feel good measures that have the sidebar of increasing operational costs and slowing the efficiency of port operations. And, we can drive up the anti-American sentiment to boot. Also, passengers may get looked at at airports, but is every single piece and item of air cargo fully inspected? I've shipped stuff FEDEX that ....well, never mind, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Oh I disagree, I think it is an informed decision, just not based on facts directly related to the proposed deal, but on political reality. Congresscritters deal with the attitudes of their isolationist minded constituents and facts are...there is an attitude in the hinterlands not to give Arab countries anything, especially when Dubai has had a dubious past. Easy to broad brush this issue...of course racist attitudes get amplified, but those with more open minds don't trust negotiating with folks in the next moment stab you in the back and support terrorists..smuggling. This is just normal business for them, but American politik doesn't like to play that way and will just as soon take their ball and go home even if they have to suck it up and pay some consequences. From a business this is a stupid decision, security, I have my doubts but am not expert, from a political standpoint it is an easy decision for me. Bush screwed up and didn't keep this deal under the rug. Too big not to get noticed. 622360[/snapback] I understand the political reality and why the congresscritters are doing what they are doing. I shudder to think what repercussions blocking this deal will have. Long term, the US is definitely sticking it to ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Oh I disagree, I think it is an informed decision, just not based on facts directly related to the proposed deal, but on political reality. Congresscritters deal with the attitudes of their isolationist minded constituents and facts are...there is an attitude in the hinterlands not to give Arab countries anything, especially when Dubai has had a dubious past. Easy to broad brush this issue...of course racist attitudes get amplified, but those with more open minds don't trust negotiating with folks in the next moment stab you in the back and support terrorists..smuggling. This is just normal business for them, but American politik doesn't like to play that way and will just as soon take their ball and go home even if they have to suck it up and pay some consequences. So, they are not concerned with what is best for the country, but are only concerned with what is best for their re-election? Sounds like things I have been saying for a while as to why these people have no business being in Congress. Bush screwed up and didn't keep this deal under the rug. Too big not to get noticed. 622360[/snapback] Again, it is a foreign business transaction. From what I understand, the only reason why this was brought up is because of a lawsuit in Florida. There is not much Bush can do about that. Yeah, way to stay on top of things, Congresscritters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts