When does the ransacking begin?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

OK guys, consider me scolded. I try to stick to issues, for the most part.

 

I just can't stand them.

623583[/snapback]

Understood, and while I like them, I agree they can be politically expedient and in Schumer's case, down right obnoxious.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think you bring up a good point.  There will be a certain segment of politicos, after realizing exactly what they have done, that will be looking to lay the blame on someone.  It stands to reason that they will erroneously stick it with Schumer and Hillary because they are easy, visible targets.  Were they vocal?  Absolutely, but no more so than any of the GOP'ers who were stepping over themselves trying to regain their "Party of National Security" standing.

623577[/snapback]

 

Anyone who looks to blame this on any individual should simply look at the House Appropriations Committee vote: 2 for, 62 against.

 

I hate Hillary as much as the next person...but she's no more and no less to blame in this case than any other idiot in Congress on either side of the aisle. As far as I can recall, this issue had stronger bipartisan support than the bill to invade Afghanistan after 9/11; this is in NO way an issue of partisan stupidity.

[X. Benedict]

Hey, Dubai controls 1/3 of Dailmer-Chrysler. Hope they aren't building bombs into the cars.

623511[/snapback]

 

I just checked with the dealer. The bombs and the chasis attatchment for IED's does not come standard.

 

However, they will be standard in the 2008 Wadi-Basher SUV.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I just checked with the dealer. The bombs and the chasis attatchment for IED's does not come standard.

 

However, they will be standard in the 2008 Wadi-Basher SUV.

623630[/snapback]

 

But the GREAT news is that that vehicle won't be available here, because Dubai Ports World doesn't have US ports they can ship them in to.

 

See, we're more secure already!

[Ghost of BiB]

So, I know it hasn't gone to final vote yet, but who is working out the details to get rid of COSCO? And others. And, we're just talking ports. How about powerplants and internet operations? Where's Mickey's corporate litigation perspective today? That's not a pick, either. That's what he does.

 

Some of you know I have some friends in "Dirty Arab Land" and in China, for that matter. Even the most politically unsavvy are going "WTF"? Others that I deal with professionally have sent me emails basically shaking their heads and saying "Good Luck".

 

Oh, who got kicked off American Idol last night? The message was put out that the tough on terror President sold our ports to a bunch of terrorist camel jockeys. What a liar he is. But, how many accepted the message face value? 30 seconds of Google would have solved that.

 

Once again, for all those who peruse and don't post, I hope this has been an eye opener. I can't think of an issue in recent memory that explains it better than this one.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So, I know it hasn't gone to final vote yet, but who is working out the details to get rid of COSCO? And others. And, we're just talking ports. How about powerplants and internet operations? Where's Mickey's corporate litigation perspective today? That's not a pick, either. That's what he does.

 

Some of you know I have some friends in "Dirty Arab Land" and in China, for that matter. Even the most politically unsavvy are going "WTF"? Others that I deal with professionally have sent me emails basically shaking their heads and saying "Good Luck".

 

Oh, who got kicked off American Idol last night? The message was put out that the tough on terror President sold our ports to a bunch of terrorist camel jockeys. What a liar he is. But, how many accepted the message face value? 30 seconds of Google would have solved that.

 

Once again, for all those who peruse and don't post, I hope this has been an eye opener. I can't think of an issue in recent memory that explains it better than this one.

623643[/snapback]

 

Is it just me, or did we really just hand fundamentalist Islamic terrorism a huge propaganda coup?

[X. Benedict]

Is it just me, or did we really just hand fundamentalist Islamic terrorism a huge propaganda coup?

623645[/snapback]

I'm not sure about that. When I have been in Muslim countries, they just expect that the US is looking for ways to screw them. This just confirms that we are looking for ways to screw them, which means we have really delivered on expectations. But I can assure you nearly everyone that works for trading companies or internationally is saying WTF.

[KRC]

Is it just me, or did we really just hand fundamentalist Islamic terrorism a huge propaganda coup?

623645[/snapback]

 

That is my take on it.

[Ghost of BiB]

Is it just me, or did we really just hand fundamentalist Islamic terrorism a huge propaganda coup?

623645[/snapback]

 

Yeah, some, but in so far as propoganda that's somewhat of a minor issue. They will propoganda regardless. Reaching the moderates and fence sitters is a bigger deal. Generally, the moderates and fence sitters in the ME understand pragmatically where things are going. The big business guys will get over it. The problem is the tone of the message. The bigger danger is in the future of where America is going with support for "moderation" in the Middle East. We didn't screw UAE business wise, the 6 or 21 or whatever ports are a drop in the bucket to them. The problem is the perceptions created through their own media. If you want to seperate transnational terrorism from an ethnic group even for PR on CNN, even if they are the most visible, you don't strategically step on your dick for the sake of a few months to get re-elected.

 

So yeah, you're right. We did.

[Johnny Coli]

Is it just me, or did we really just hand fundamentalist Islamic terrorism a huge propaganda coup?

623645[/snapback]

Playing devil's advocate here:

 

Who cares? Was this deal really the last item that tipped the scale of hatred? So a deal involving a major company didn't go through? If we're that worried about perception in the ME, isn't there a lot of other things we can be doing?

 

EDIT:

Just saw Gbib's post.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Johnny Coli

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Playing devil's advocate here:

 

Who cares?  Was this deal really the last item that tipped the scale of hatred?  So a deal involving a major company didn't go through?  If we're that worried about perception in the ME, isn't there a lot of other things we can be doing?

 

 

I see your point...but flip that around. If we want to improve our image in the Middle East, wouldn't it be beneficial to pursue relationships with moderate Islam? Instead, we xenophobically avoid them?

 

 

EDIT:

Just saw Gbib's post.

623685[/snapback]

 

BiB's right, in that the six ports represent, dollar-wise, a rounding error to DPW (my understanding has been and is still that they pursued this deal for the Far East ports, and the US ports were just part and parcel of the package). Dollars isn't the point. "We don't trust you enough to do business with you, simply because you worship Allah and wear robes" is the point. (There's also the point about the US government meddling in a deal between two foreign companies...but we'll ignore that for now.) The dollar value of the deal's entirely secondary to slapping an Arab strategic partner in the face with an obviously racist double-standard...and Arab society tends to be prideful and have a very long memory.

 

I would love it, personally, if the UAE told our oil companies "We can't do business with you, as given American military adventurism in the Middle East over the past few decades, your companies are too much of a security risk" and stopped letting American ships into their terminals. Force us to pay a premium on oil while the rest of the world drinks it for breakfast. It would serve our racist asses right in this case.

[Johnny Coli]

I see your point...but flip that around.  If we want to improve our image in the Middle East, wouldn't it be beneficial to pursue relationships with moderate Islam?  Instead, we xenophobically avoid them?

BiB's right, in that the six ports represent, dollar-wise, a rounding error to DPW (my understanding has been and is still that they pursued this deal for the Far East ports, and the US ports were just part and parcel of the package).  Dollars isn't the point.  "We don't trust you enough to do business with you, simply because you worship Allah and wear robes" is the point.  (There's also the point about the US government meddling in a deal between two foreign companies...but we'll ignore that for now.)  The dollar value of the deal's entirely secondary to slapping an Arab strategic partner in the face with an obviously racist double-standard...and Arab society tends to be prideful and have a very long memory. 

 

I would love it, personally, if the UAE told our oil companies "We can't do business with you, as given American military adventurism in the Middle East over the past few decades, your companies are too much of a security risk" and stopped letting American ships into their terminals.  Force us to pay a premium on oil while the rest of the world drinks it for breakfast.  It would serve our racist asses right in this case.

623693[/snapback]

A couple quick questions/points:

 

First, if the US is looking to extend a hand to a ME-based company, shouldn't it pick a company/corporation/whoever that someone would have to perform a superhuman effort to dig up a terrorist link to? The UAE usually pops up pretty quick. There has to be thousands of companies out there with more than 1 degree of seperation from themselves and Hamas or 9-11.

 

Second, the Bushies brought this on themselves. It's been beaten to death that "arab states" support terrorist organizations. Gitmo isn't full of Norwegians. We didn't pre-emptively invade the Portugese. Any moron could have greased the wheels for this deal by floating some good vibes about how great the UAE is. But no. In fact, the major players in the administration got collective amnesia as soon as it hit the airwaves, then gave the laughable response "Trust us."

 

Third, I'm sure there are plenty of companies lined up to make a bid for control of these ports. These guys (the administration) are supposed to be "board-room" guys, and yet they stomp their feet and pound their fists becasue they can't do a deal with this one company. The American people are the stockholders, and they overwhelmingly didn't like this deal. It's not their (the people) job to get all the facts, it's the admin's job to get the facts, and sell it to the stockholders if that's what it takes. They didn't forsee the need, and they didn't do all they could to get the stink off this deal, deserved or otherwise.

 

 

Blame xenophbia. But there's a hell of a lot more to this than knee-jerk anti-arab sentiment.

[KRC]

A couple quick questions/points:

 

First, if the US is looking to extend a hand to a ME-based company, shouldn't it pick a company/corporation/whoever that someone would have to perform a superhuman effort to dig up a terrorist link to?  The UAE usually pops up pretty quick.  There has to be thousands of companies out there with more than 1 degree of seperation from themselves and Hamas or 9-11.

 

 

 

Again, the U.S. didn’t pick anyone. This was a business transaction between two foreign entities.

 

 

 

Second, the Bushies brought this on themselves.  It's been beaten to death that "arab states" support terrorist organizations.  Gitmo isn't full of Norwegians.  We didn't pre-emptively invade the Portugese.  Any moron could have greased the wheels for this deal by floating some good vibes about how great the UAE is.  But no.  In fact, the major players in the administration got collective amnesia as soon as it hit the airwaves, then gave the laughable response "Trust us." 

 

They said that some arab states support terrorist organizations. Again, some. Not all. Some.

 

 

 

Third, I'm sure there are plenty of companies lined up to make a bid for control of these ports.  These guys (the administration) are supposed to be "board-room" guys, and yet they stomp their feet and pound their fists becasue they can't do a deal with this one company.  The American people are the stockholders, and they overwhelmingly didn't like this deal.  It's not their (the people) job to get all the facts, it's the admin's job to get the facts, and sell it to the stockholders if that's what it takes.  They didn't forsee the need, and they didn't do all they could to get the stink off this deal, deserved or otherwise.

 

 

 

Again, this is NOT AN AMERICAN DEAL. This is a deal between two foreign entities.

 

 

 

Blame xenophbia.  But there's a hell of a lot more to this than knee-jerk anti-arab sentiment.

623728[/snapback]

 

No there isn't.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

A couple quick questions/points:

 

First, if the US is looking to extend a hand to a ME-based company, shouldn't it pick a company/corporation/whoever that someone would have to perform a superhuman effort to dig up a terrorist link to?  The UAE usually pops up pretty quick.  There has to be thousands of companies out there with more than 1 degree of seperation from themselves and Hamas or 9-11.

 

That argument would work a hell of a lot better if the US had "picked" the company to begin with. This was Congress blocking the sale of a British company to an Arab company...and I haven't yet heard a reason for blocking it that doesn't reduce to "But...but...but...they're Arab."

 

Second, the Bushies brought this on themselves.  It's been beaten to death that "arab states" support terrorist organizations.  Gitmo isn't full of Norwegians.  We didn't pre-emptively invade the Portugese.  Any moron could have greased the wheels for this deal by floating some good vibes about how great the UAE is.  But no.  In fact, the major players in the administration got collective amnesia as soon as it hit the airwaves, then gave the laughable response "Trust us." 

 

And thanks for providing the case in point: "Gitmo isn't full of Norwegians. We didn't pre-emptively invade the Portugese." In other words...it's because they're Arab.

 

Third, I'm sure there are plenty of companies lined up to make a bid for control of these ports.  These guys (the administration) are supposed to be "board-room" guys, and yet they stomp their feet and pound their fists becasue they can't do a deal with this one company.  The American people are the stockholders, and they overwhelmingly didn't like this deal.  It's not their (the people) job to get all the facts, it's the admin's job to get the facts, and sell it to the stockholders if that's what it takes.  They didn't forsee the need, and they didn't do all they could to get the stink off this deal, deserved or otherwise.

 

You're sure...based on what? How many companies are their in this nation and the world that do port management? How many of those would come beating down DPW's door to acquire the management contracts for six ports that are only on the market because the US Congress blocked the sale in the first place? Yeah, I'm sure they're lined up...I'd be lining up too under those conditions.

 

And good job appealing to my well-vocalized sense of "The administration couldn't sell space-heaters to Eskimos." Nice touch. Too bad I haven't seen jack sh-- from the "American public" on this issue; everything I've seen has come entirely from Congress, who, if they bothered to do their !@#$ing jobs, should have raised the issue themselves above the level of "Sand !@#$s! Towel heads!" They didn't. In fact, they completely mis-portrayed the issue by implying that "American ports are being sold to Arabs", which was never the case to begin with!!!

 

Blame xenophbia.  But there's a hell of a lot more to this than knee-jerk anti-arab sentiment.

623728[/snapback]

 

Yes, there's a hell of a lot more to this issue. That's why it's such a crying shame it got reduced, not to knee-jerk anti-arab sentiment, but to knee-jerk racism.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Blame xenophbia.  But there's a hell of a lot more to this than knee-jerk anti-arab sentiment.

623728[/snapback]

 

No there isn't.

623737[/snapback]

 

Is anyone else weirded out by the liberal-labelled posters arguing against the existence of racism here, while the conservative-typecast posters are arguing for its presence?

 

!@#$ing weird, man...

[KRC]

Is anyone else weirded out by the liberal-labelled posters arguing against the existence of racism here, while the conservative-typecast posters are arguing for its presence? 

 

!@#$ing weird, man... 

623746[/snapback]

 

Ironic, isn't it?

[EC-Bills]

Ironic, isn't it?

623750[/snapback]

 

Tell me about it. I was beginning to wonder if I hadn't screwed up in taking my meds this morning.

[Johnny Coli]

Is anyone else weirded out by the liberal-labelled posters arguing against the existence of racism here, while the conservative-typecast posters are arguing for its presence? 

 

!@#$ing weird, man... 

623746[/snapback]

Where am I arguing "against" racism being part of this? You're saying it's the only thing in play. I'm saying it was a part of why the deal got nuked, and it arose through 5-plus years of ramming these views down peoples throats. I find it more ironic that the same administration that argues "for" racially profiling to combat terrorism, are the ones screaming loudest about racism now.

[KRC]

Where am I arguing "against" racism being part of this?  You're saying it's the only thing in play.  I'm saying it was a part of why the deal got nuked, and it arose through 5-plus years of ramming these views down peoples throats.  I find it more ironic that the same administration that argues "for" racially profiling to combat terrorism, are the ones screaming loudest about racism now.

623760[/snapback]

I am getting tired of this. Point out exact quotes by Bush where he said or implied that ALL Arabs are terrorists and cannot be trusted. From the beginning, I remember him being pretty clear that it is the extremists that he has a problem with regarding terrorism, not all Arabs. I could be wrong and I am asking you to prove me wrong.

[Ghost of BiB]

So anyway, what is Congress doing about COSCO?

 

DPW has not been tied to any terrorist dealings I'm aware of, their COO is an American, etc. etc.

 

COSCO runs a good operation, but have also been caught in cahoots more than once. I listed one time as an example. There's more.

 

I think their contracts should be arbitrally cancelled as soon as the Iraq-Katrina funding bill gets signed. Might take Congressional action to do that. But, we can't have no chinks running our ports. It's not safe after last week.