look now i dont wanna seem gay or nothing BUT...

i hate spidas second post is not in all caps

now i dont know if its a chit chat thing or what

BUT...

TOTAL

MIND

FUCK



[Edited on February 23, 2006 at 2:54 AM. Reason : woah the first post isnt either, i just noticed that]

[Edited on February 23, 2006 at 2:55 AM. Reason : i also am one not to agree with this one]

2/23/2006 2:50:28 AM

Quote :

"UAE = All Arabs"

FYI.

Several aspects of the UAE's population are unusual. The population in 1995 was 15 times larger than it was in 1965, largely due to the immigration of oil workers. Four-fifths of the UAE's inhabitants are foreign workers and their dependents. The UAE also has a very young population, due to the influx of young foreign workers, cultural preference for large families, and improved medical care.

The native population of the UAE is Arab; and generally a different tribe dominates each emirate. About two-thirds of the UAE's non-native population are Asians (largely Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Filipinos), and the other third are Iranians or Arabs (primarily Jordanians, Palestinians, and Egyptians). Although the disproportionate number of expatriates has caused some concern over its possible impact on security and on social and cultural values, the level of tensions between the various ethnic communities is slight.

2/23/2006 3:12:37 AM

^^HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK

2/23/2006 6:12:40 PM

i think they should controll...its not like they have any military that can destroy the us...plus US marines and shipps are all over there...so whats there to worry...fuck the paranoida this country is going through....

Remeber everyone is brotheres and sisters...and we all should love each other..

2/23/2006 7:31:28 PM

clearly organized militaries are the only threat our country is facing right now

2/23/2006 8:19:14 PM

Dubai is a pretty cool place. It's mostly a bunch of rich British people anyways. Everyone speaks English, there is freedom of religion and it is the only neutral Arab nation (well, at least of when I wrote a paper about it a year or so ago). It's basically become a playground for rich people. The world's tallest hotel, Burj al Arab is there, and they're making a community of man made islands called The World, which is shaped like a map of the world, and divided into countries. Lots of celebrities like Rod Stewart and I think David Beckham and Posh Spice and Richard Branson have already bought individual countries.

It looks kind of like the Carribbean, but in the Gulf.

Just a little FYI

2/23/2006 8:26:19 PM

i think we all know that stuff

2/23/2006 8:49:37 PM

^no, some of us didn't. she had something to contribute. why you hatin?

2/23/2006 8:55:01 PM

i love UAE ($$$$)

2/23/2006 8:59:38 PM

Thanks Bridget

I don't know why so many people here are negative sometimes.

2/23/2006 9:08:31 PM

Quote :

"clearly organized militaries are the only threat our country is facing right now"

2/23/2006 10:13:20 PM

and thats whats making the US a joke around the world...Bush aint helpin!

2/23/2006 10:28:07 PM

Chertoff all of a sudden announced that the $100 mil the UAE gave for Katrina relief wasn't a bribe.

k.

2/25/2006 2:49:46 PM

good story on 60 minutes

2/26/2006 7:10:24 PM

this post was awesome, mostly because of the preface:

Quote :

"Hmm let me paint this clearer for those at State who dont care about this... Let's say for instance UAE controls a major shipping port out of Wilmington, which ships out lets say Kevlar, which is the bullet proof material which the College of Textiles at NCSU help produce. Well lets say this new company out of U.A.E., puts a large tax on all security based goods, fire retardant clothing, ammo for military, but in this case Kevlar vests, and let's say..and go out on a whim that these vests our being shipped overseas to our guys to aide them in their war in Iraq and other Middle Eastern areas. Well if the taxed placed on the goods is too high, it means our College of Textiles makes less, which means it produces less vests, which means less gets shipped out to our guys fighting their butts off overseas and getting blown the fuck up...So dont sit back and say you dont give a fuck B/C whether you do or dont care this has an affect on people....how the fuck can you pay X amount of dollars to be in school at NCSU and say you dont care..wake the fuck up! I dont care who you voted for-for president, Im just saying get your fucking noses out of "oh my gf has big tits discussion" and for once realize shit outside of NCSU has an effect on the people that live in NC! For instance the buds of mine who are in Iraq fighting at this current moment, and something as this little example could actually happen in the very near future...."

2/26/2006 7:22:15 PM

i thought it was awesome because of how stupid it was

2/26/2006 7:22:50 PM

Yea that was pretty stupid.

Companies can tax us now LOLAZ

2/26/2006 7:29:19 PM

hey sandsanta one thing they said on the show was how the port management companies are responsible for hiring security

2/26/2006 8:12:43 PM

Pertinant information: The only other bidder for at least one of the ports was a company from Singapore, China.

2/26/2006 11:53:49 PM

also, an american company wouldnt be allowed to buy a uae port

2/27/2006 12:23:16 AM

in case anyone missed it

they're now getting 21 ports

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : great]

2/27/2006 1:17:13 AM

worldwide?

and there are some good articles now about how the uae's lack of control has led to al qaida infiltration of some of their businesses, including shipping companies

2/27/2006 4:23:22 PM

^nope

just 21 here in the states

including the gulf coast

i'll try and find the article

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r]

2/27/2006 4:33:03 PM

National Security << Economic Activity

And what's with the "45 day" delay? If I'm reading correctly, the deal is going to be finalized March 2, not 45 days from now.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:01 AM. Reason : ...]

2/28/2006 12:57:14 AM

hahahahaha

just another case of prestidigitation

2/28/2006 1:02:52 AM

I say don't let it fly. More people need to know about this. The "45 day delay" is a media myth, and has no bearing on whether or not the deal goes through.

2/28/2006 1:06:11 AM

Bush is an idiot

2/28/2006 11:57:12 PM

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Talk about a "failure of imagination" of epic proportions:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/01/port.security/index.html

Quote :

"Lawmaker: Port deal never probed for terror ties Coast Guard official says ports 'far more secure now' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over a portion of operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday. Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments told him weeks ago that their 30-day review of the deal did not look into the question of links between DP World and al Qaeda. King said the officials told him after he asked about investigation into possible terrorist ties: "Congressman, you don't understand, we don't conduct a thorough investigation. We just ask the intel director if there is anything on file, and he said no." "There was no real investigation conducted during the 30-day period," King, who has been a vocal critic of the deal, told CNN. "I can't emphasize this enough," King's comments appear to contradict testimony by administration officials before Congress this week that a through review of any terrorism ties had occurred during the initial review of the deal. After King and other lawmakers raised concerns about the deal, the company agreed to a 45-day review by the investigation. King said the administration should use the time to investigate the firm rather than trying to convince lawmakers that the deal should be approved. "When I hear the administration saying they want to educate the Congress and the American public, they should be educating themselves," King said. "They should do the investigation they should have done after the 30 days." A wave of concern has swept Capitol Hill over news of the deal to allow Dubai-based DP World to assume management of some cargo terminals at six U.S. ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. (Interactive: Who is minding the ports) Critics note that two of the suicide hijackers involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, came from the United Arab Emirates and that money for the plot was funneled through banks in Dubai, the banking hub of the Persian Gulf. Supporters note that the UAE is an ally and home to major U.S. military bases, and that port security would be handled by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies after the merger, just as it is now. The $6.8 billion merger is set to close Thursday in Britain, home of current port operator P&O, but DP World agreed not to assume control of P&O's port operations until a 45-day security review takes place. Port security defended Also Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard's vice commandant defended the state of U.S. port security after facing tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged that more work remains to be done. "I don't think there's any question that our ports are far more secure now than they were prior to 9/11," Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross told a congressional subcommittee. His testimony came a day after Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson told a Senate committee he was unaware of a Coast Guard memo that warned of "intelligence gaps" in its review of a proposed merger that would put a company owned by and based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of several U.S. cargo terminals. The Coast Guard, which is part of Homeland Security, said the document has been taken out of context since its disclosure. The document's existence was revealed Monday by Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. (Read the Coast Guard memo) Chertoff promises changes Collins, a Maine Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday what measures he would take to improve communication within his department after the Coast Guard memo went unnoticed. Chertoff said his department was taking measures to "flatten the organization" in an effort to streamline communication between department heads. Chertoff addressed the committee Wednesday in a wide-ranging hearing on his department's proposed budget. In his testimony, Cross expressed confidence in domestic port security, noting that ships now must give 96 hours' notice before entering a U.S. port, up from 24 hours before September 11. Cross said the additional time allows port security officers to vet a ship's crew, passenger list, cargo manifest and vessel history before it arrives. But Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough. She said $4.4 billion has been spent on aviation security, "but only $36 million in all surface transportation." Also Wednesday, a federal judge refused a request by the state of New Jersey to investigate the ports deal, according to The Associated Press. The judge also refused to order the release of the documents relating to the deal, saying they were confidential and that the state failed "to show an immediate need for those documents," the AP said."

3/1/2006 10:33:43 PM

Yes, people of middle-eastern persuasion should never try investing in anything related to transportation, they should know better. What next? Will they be marrying our women?

</sarcasm>

3/1/2006 11:01:38 PM

Uhm...I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to look for links to terrorism or terror networks before okaying the deal. It's a minor inconvenience, but by no means an insurmountable barrier to entry. Not totally unfounded either, given the fact that their country spawned two of the 9/11 hijackers, and has a lengthy history of involvement with terrorists. But if it's a benign operation, that'll come out in a security review, and the deal would be okayed with no problem--as well it should be.

3/2/2006 2:22:16 AM

Quote :

"Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington,Published: March 1 2006 23:50 Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World. It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal. Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman. On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress. Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.” He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations. Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai. The backlash against Dubai’s takeover has seen some lawmakers in Washington highlight the UAE’s alleged role in helping to finance September 11. "

Look, I'm trying not to get all salisburyboy, one world gov't about this...but we've got two U.S. presidents working hard on pushing something through that rubs almost every American the wrong way.

3/2/2006 9:38:20 AM

CLINTON HELPED DUBAI WITH THE PORT DEAL SO IT MUST BE GOOD, RIGHT FOLKS?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

3/2/2006 10:07:46 AM

1. Read one post up.
2.
3. Profit.

3/2/2006 10:11:54 AM

1) I provided a link to echo Earthdogg's post
2)
3) Profit

3/2/2006 10:14:32 AM

so people are supposed to be mad that clinton is working towards an amiable solution that people on both sides can agree with?

3/2/2006 11:34:17 AM

Good thing we don't care about Chinese ownership of our ports.

Nope don't care at all.

The world's largest country and fastest growing economy poses no real TV marketable threat.

So we'll go ahead and play the "TURRISTS ZOMG" line for idiots like JonHGuth to eat up and repeat.

3/2/2006 12:27:55 PM

^ Slick Willie engineered that deal as well.

I like how JonHGuth has gone from:

Quote :

"and there are some good articles now about how the uae's lack of control has led to al qaida infiltration of some of their businesses, including shipping companies"

to this:

Quote :

"so people are supposed to be mad that clinton is working towards an amiable solution that people on both sides can agree with?"

...since Clinton is involved. Read the article. Clinton was paid $300,000 by the UAE to speak at a summit and, surprise surprise, is now consulting them on how to handle this. Funny how they go from not being trusted in your 1st response to almost acceptable in your 2nd. Amiable solution in this case would mean what exactly? Why would you want an amiable solution with people who have been, in your own words, infiltrated by al qaida?

3/2/2006 12:44:51 PM

i think that we should pass legistlation that limits ownership of certain infrastructure by foreign companies. never have i limited this to just certain countries, all i did was point out the outragousness of a country with questionable links to terrorism. its something that other countries do and it makes a lot of sense. you can try to twist my words to say i dont have a problem with chinese owndership of ports, or indian ownership of communication infrastructire, etc... but you will just keep making yourself look stupid.

i am opposed to this deal going through, but if it is going to go through i think at the very least we need a security review. the review that was done wasnt an in depth investigation into ties to terrorism. al queda has infiltrated some areas of uae business so at the very least that needs to be investigated.

i understand that as a bush partyliner the only way things make sense to you is if you try to fit things into simple black or white dichotomies, and thats ok. just realize you look stupid to everyone else.

3/2/2006 1:21:48 PM

Cinton is a free trader

you conservatives should be sucking his Wang (no China pun intended) like you were Monica

3/2/2006 1:51:31 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: CLINTON HELPED DUBAI WITH THE PORT DEAL SO IT MUST BE GOOD, RIGHT FOLKS?"

DOLE HELPED DUBAI WITH THE PORT DEAL SO IT MUST BE GOOD, RIGHT Wlfpk4Life?

And unlike Bob Dole, Bill Clinton actually supported his wife's proposed legislation to prevent state-owned companies from controlling our ports.

Bill Clinton has been involved in this for two weeks; in an advisory role concerning the public opinion frenzy that has ensued, no less. His advice? Submit to the full and regular scrutiny process. How terrible!!1

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Read the article. Clinton was paid $300,000 by the UAE to speak at a summit and, surprise surprise, is now consulting them on how to handle this."

UAE paid the US $100 million after Hurricane Katrina and, surprise surprise, the President is now threatening to veto legislation preventing their takeover. This, despite UAE's open hostility towards Israel. They won't even permit Israelis to travel within their borders.

3/2/2006 9:38:20 PM

^ There goes the Jewish conspiracy angle then.

Bush is wrong, period. Clinton is a douchebag who's also helping out the UAE, whether you want to admit it or not, his supposed support of Hillary be damned.

Quote :

"i understand that as a bush partyliner the only way things make sense to you is if you try to fit things into simple black or white dichotomies, and thats ok. just realize you look stupid to everyone else."

I've called Bush out for being wrong so there goes your partyliner theory. You can try to fit other people's political views into simple black or white dichotomies, and that's ok. Just realize you look stupid to everyone else.

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2006 10:40:03 PM

Quote :

"This, despite UAE's open hostility towards Israel. They won't even permit Israelis to travel within their borders."

And your point is?

Israel is openly hostile to nearly all Muslim countries... and that is OK?

Most Muslims can't travel to Israel... and that is OK?

OF COURSE that is OK!!!!111

[we all know who runs the US]

3/3/2006 2:35:41 PM

I think exploding busses and restaurants have something to do with that.

I'm going to go look up all the Israeli suicide bombers on wikipedia now.

[Edited on March 3, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : *]

3/3/2006 2:41:04 PM

You're quite off the point there.

My point is that if Bush and Co. refuse to deal with the Hamas government because of its open hostility towards Israel, why is it willing to deal with (and even willing to veto efforts to prevent it from dealing with) the UAE? There's absolutely no consistency there.

3/3/2006 2:41:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

3/9/2006 4:12:31 PM

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1

Quote :

"White House Asked Dubai Ports to Pull Out Stunning Defeat for Bush, but Republicans in Congress Promise to Put It Behind Them March 10, 2006 — The White House asked Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to give up its management stake in U.S. ports, to save President Bush from the politically difficult position of vetoing a key piece of legislation to protect America's ports, ABC News has learned. When the company announced Thursday that it would sell its management stake in six U.S. ports, it was a stunning defeat for Bush, who had put his political capital on the line to back the deal, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said. "Certainly, it's the most significant break with the Republican leadership in the Congress this term," he said. The Democrats — suddenly feeling united — insist the scuttled ports deal is proof that the White House is weakened and divided against its own party. "They couldn't hold their forces on the other side," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "and this is a retreat under fire, make no mistake." "[Capitol] Hill was leading the charge," Stephanopoulos said. "They've been telling the White House for three weeks, 'This deal is dead. We're going to override you.'" With victory in hand, leading Republicans insist there are no hard feelings. "In all fairness, I'm not going to be a Monday-morning quarterback," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "It's all over now." Sen. John Warner, R-Va., agreed. "I think this incident is behind us, and we will go forward," he said. A Complex Relationship The defeat does lead one to question how much control the increasingly unpopular White House will have over Republicans in Congress during this election year. Stephanopoulos said he had been struck by how many Republican members of Congress had said they were holding the White House in contempt. "They're saying they're arrogant, and they don't trust their competence anymore," he said. The complex relationship between the president and the Republican members of Congress affects how effective they will be. "The more they abandon the president, the more they weaken the president," Stephanopoulos said. "But, it also hurts their prospects in the midterm elections. They have debates coming up on immigration, the budget, Iraq." "I think they want to be together with the president," he added, "but not at their own expense." Political Storm On Thursday, Dubai Ports World closed its $6.8 billion purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia through a U.S. subsidiary. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports. The takeover plan was disclosed last month, setting off a political firestorm in the United States even though the company's U.S. operations were only a small part of the global transaction. Dubai Ports valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase. Republicans denounced the plan, furious that they had learned about it from news reports and not the White House. They cited concerns over a company run by a foreign government overseeing operations at U.S. ports already vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Democrats also pledged to halt the takeover and clamored for a vote in the Senate. They sought to gain political advantage from the controversy by trying to narrow a polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security. After the company's announcement Thursday, the Senate indefinitely postponed a vote on a Democratic move to block the deal. Bush had defended the deal, calling the United Arab Emirates a strong ally in the war on terror and pledging to cast the first veto of his presidency if Congress voted to interfere. Senate Republicans initially tried to fend off a vote, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed Wednesday with the 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee to stop the sale. Republican leaders of Congress privately told the president the Senate would inevitably do the same, despite his threats to veto any legislation killing the deal."

3/11/2006 6:41:10 PM