http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm

He will veto a bill blocking 6 U.S. ports from being run by the United Arab Emirates. The Britist company who controls them now is selling them and Congress wants to block it.

I think this is a good move for the president politically, not to mention morally.

What do you think? Ultra-libs, is Bush wrong again or is racial profiling a country ok?

2/21/2006 5:58:38 PM

how is this a good move for bush

2/21/2006 5:59:38 PM

People think his foreign policy is hatemongering. Well if we block a country's firm from something like this because of their religion, that's pretty much hatemongering.

People want him to impress the international community, well this is pretty damned impressive.

2/21/2006 6:01:58 PM

Quote :

"President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run six key U.S. seaports. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," he said. Critics cite a potential security threat arguing the UAE was a finance center for 9/11 terrorists, but the State Department said the deal has nothing to do "with the responsibility for security in American ports.""

Just saw it on cnn... was undecided about making a thread.

2/21/2006 6:03:40 PM

will this be his first veto?

2/21/2006 6:04:48 PM

look around dumbass, even youre neo-con friends in congress are balking at this.

2/21/2006 6:05:20 PM

a large majority of americans are against this takeover and wish there was more investigation (at least according to early polls)

president bush is supposed to be tough on terror and vetoing this bill would appear to many as completely contradictory

i dont see how it would be a good move

2/21/2006 6:06:59 PM

it'll really pull in that emirate immigrant vote.

2/21/2006 6:29:44 PM

why the fuck should he care?

he's not up for reelection

2/21/2006 6:32:22 PM

I swear to God in agreement with George W. Bush on this shit. Never thought I'd see the day.

Who is in charge of security at our ports? The Coast Guard. Who will be running the day to day operations? Skeezy longshoremen. Do we check foreign cargo anyway? Hardly at all. I fail to see the problem in this. I'm willing to get my ass educated if there's a legitimate reason to back this opposition, but if all people have got is RAGHEADS TUKK UR JOBSPORTS then I really can't give a fuck. Almost all our west coast ports are foreign owned and about half of our east coast ones are. WHO. GIVES. A. FUCK.

If we were actually inspecting a reasonable number of cargo containers, and there were reason to believe that this dirty fucking foreigners were obstructing that in some manner, then there would be reason for protest. Otherwise, I don't see a problem.

2/21/2006 7:01:33 PM

His first veto?!? Can't he get it killed in committee or something!?!?

2/21/2006 7:25:27 PM

bush is wrong

2/21/2006 7:28:34 PM

ps

ITS NOT LIKE THERE ISN'T A CAPS LOCK THREAD ON THIS ALREADY

2/21/2006 7:29:52 PM

Quote :

"a large majority of americans are against this takeover "

So if a large majority of americans support it, then it shall be?
Lets not worry ourselves with the constitution or fairness. Also, I call into question your unsubstantiated claim of a large majority. Also, my "neo-con" friends in Congress balking at this is exactly the point I'm making. First, I'm no neo-con and second, their balking is unfair, racist, and ridiculous. I think they're making a mistake to oppose the UAB running the port when they had no problem with the British.

2/21/2006 7:58:38 PM

Quote :

"ut if all people have got is RAGHEADS TUKK UR JOBSPORTS then I really can't give a fuck. Almost all our west coast ports are foreign owned and about half of our east coast ones are. WHO. GIVES. A. FUCK."

this is not just a OMFG thing

the uae has already proven to be compacent with shipments of nuclear materials through its ports to iran, north korea, and libya; the treasury department has criticized the uae's efforts to help track down osama bin laden after 9/11; and they consider the taliban a valid government.

i dont give a shit what color they are, i dont want anyone with that track record in charge or us ports.

2/21/2006 8:07:23 PM

It isn't up to you.

2/21/2006 8:41:50 PM

Saints forgive me, but JonHGuth makes a great point.

2/21/2006 8:44:38 PM

Quote :

"Who will be running the day to day operations? Skeezy longshoremen who make more money than most everyone on this site"

Quote :

"With premiums, night differentials and overtime added, longshoremen now earn nearly $100,000 a year on average"

i swear to god i just need to quit my job and unload ships

2/21/2006 8:48:30 PM

Quote :

"It isn't up to you."

no, but there are a lot of people with the same opinion

2/21/2006 9:06:43 PM

^^Good luck getting a longshoreman job. Motherfuckers basically had that shit down in wills.

2/21/2006 9:22:05 PM

i love the bipartisanship of this

bush and carter vs clinton and frist (not to mention guth and wlfpk4life)

2/21/2006 10:42:40 PM

and another way bush is wrong about this: the way he handled it

from this administration how the fuck did he think a secret review was gonna go over? he wants us to simply trust him? if it is not a threat to security then he should present the facts and allow some debate., but no he just pulls the veto threat.

i mean time and time again this administration thinks that they can control information like this and just expect everyone to smile and nod

2/21/2006 10:45:04 PM

i mean, thats the modus operani for this administration

push push push, hope nobody finds out, cover cover cover

2/21/2006 10:52:07 PM

Quote :

"Who is in charge of security at our ports? The Coast Guard. Who will be running the day to day operations? Skeezy longshoremen. Do we check foreign cargo anyway? Hardly at all. I fail to see the problem in this. I'm willing to get my ass educated if there's a legitimate reason to back this opposition, but if all people have got is RAGHEADS TUKK UR JOBSPORTS then I really can't give a fuck. Almost all our west coast ports are foreign owned and about half of our east coast ones are. WHO. GIVES. A. FUCK."

pretty much. i mean, the owners are overseas, but the jobs are still obviously going to be here in the good 'ol US of A. HOOOO!

so i guess I agree with Bush on this? *shudder*

2/21/2006 10:58:56 PM

He's right, but he'd be an idiot to use his one and only veto to help out the UAE.

2/21/2006 11:01:37 PM

i was really really hoping his first veto was gonna be for torture

that'd be a hell of a legacy

2/21/2006 11:14:23 PM

Quote :

"is Bush wrong again or is racial profiling a country ok?"

Hahaha...where'd you learn how to phrase a question? TGD must've let you borrow Debate Tactics by Karl Rove.

So, now I have a question for you. Why do you think we should capitulate to terrorists?

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ...]

2/22/2006 12:10:40 AM

Yeah, great point, for a total moron.

Capitulate to terrorist = allowing a company operated in a muslim country to operate in the US

At least my question, while loaded, was on point.

2/22/2006 12:17:00 AM

OPERATED BY A MUSLIM COUNTRY

and not just ANY muslim country

DOCUMENTED TIES TO 9/11
HISTORY OF QUESTIONABLE PORT MOVEMENT
CONTINUED RECOGNITION OF THE TALIBAN

but oh wait
this is just racism

2/22/2006 12:23:47 AM

They used to be owned by an English company.

OASIS
"BANGERS"
POOR DENTAL HYGIENE



Okay, so I didn't realize it was actually the UAE, not a UAE country. But I figure I picked a position, I might as well keep trolling it.

But yeah, I think the overarching need to actually inspect the ships' cargo is much more important, especially because that would require an army of magical robots, or maybe unicorns, which would be awesome.

2/22/2006 12:35:55 AM

i'm all for magical robot unicorns

2/22/2006 12:45:44 AM

i think it's political grandstanding by those who are speaking out against this. sure have oversight...but the company has an interest in not having any terror shit related to their ports, otherwise they know that will be the end of their business in the u.s.

at the end of the day, it'll be the same workers working the ports, just a different company getting the money.

gov't security is a third party no matter if americans own the ports or the arabs do.

but it sounds pretty good when you're a democrat and can yell on tv about how you're trying to protect americans, yet, you don't want the nsa to listen to conversations between known terrorists and people in the united states...

2/22/2006 12:46:32 AM

Quote :

"but it sounds pretty good when you're a democrat and can yell on tv about how you're trying to protect americans,"

bill frist says "fuck you bitch"
lindsay graham says "suck my nuts"
i could keep going
but you're really not worth it

2/22/2006 12:52:45 AM

I have to pick between George W. Bush and Linsday F. Graham?

People die this way. Their goddamn heads explode.







p.s. The "F" is for "Fucking".

2/22/2006 1:44:15 AM

Quote :

"I swear to God in agreement with George W. Bush on this shit. Never thought I'd see the day. Who is in charge of security at our ports? The Coast Guard. Who will be running the day to day operations? Skeezy longshoremen. Do we check foreign cargo anyway? Hardly at all. I fail to see the problem in this. I'm willing to get my ass educated if there's a legitimate reason to back this opposition, but if all people have got is RAGHEADS TUKK UR JOBSPORTS then I really can't give a fuck. Almost all our west coast ports are foreign owned and about half of our east coast ones are. WHO. GIVES. A. FUCK. If we were actually inspecting a reasonable number of cargo containers, and there were reason to believe that this dirty fucking foreigners were obstructing that in some manner, then there would be reason for protest. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. "

I agree with all of this.

Other than the fact that UAE has "arab" in its name, no one has really offered a legitimate reason why this deal shouldn't go through.

Quote :

"Woodfoot: DOCUMENTED TIES TO 9/11"

You mean thing thing about AQ money moving through UAE banks? Well AQ money has moved through a lot of banks, including American and British ones. That's pretty much a made-up argument.

Quote :

" HISTORY OF QUESTIONABLE PORT MOVEMENT CONTINUED RECOGNITION OF THE TALIBAN "

link?

2/22/2006 2:02:29 AM

Quote :

"this administration how the fuck did he think a secret review was gonna go over? he wants us to simply trust himthe uae has already proven to be compacent with shipments of nuclear materials through its ports to iran, north korea, and libya; the treasury department has criticized the uae's efforts to help track down osama bin laden after 9/11; and they consider the taliban a valid government. "

Those aren't good enough for you?

By the way:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml

Quote :

"Marwan al-Shehhi, pilot and group leader Age: 23. Nationality: United Arab Emirates. Al-Shehhi was a friendly foil to his frequent companion, the brooding Atta, as they earned their commercial pilots licenses together in Venice, then trained on a simulator in Opa-Locka near Miami. He and Atta arrived in the United States in the summer of 2000. This time last year, al-Shehhi, Atta and several other Sept. 11 terrorists were living at a Deerfield Beach motel, where the owner noticed they dressed nicely, never went to the beach a block away, never swam in the kidney-shaped pool and always carried black duffel bags. "

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001107/2000110710.html

Quote :

"Emirates for lifting the embargo imposed on Iraq United Arab Emirates-Iraq, Politics, 11/7/2000 The United Arab Emirates (UAE) deputy prime minister Sheikh Sultan Bin Zayed al-Nahyan said that the continued besiege of the Iraqi people raises "Humanitarian shame" at the daily death of thousands of Iraqi children. In press statements issued on Monday by the UAE daily al-Khaleij, Sheikh Sultan added that the continued sanctions against the Iraqi people has doubled the sufferings. The UAE minister who made these statements during his meeting with the British ambassador in the UAE Patrick Nixon, who ( the ambassador) handed him a message from the British Prime minister Tony Blair on the need of honoring international resolutions and implementing them. The UAE minister stressed that the continued siege of more than 10 years has greatly damaged the Iraqi people. Concerning the situation in the occupied territories, the UAE official said that the situation was escalated because the " Zionist hatred has exceeded all humanitarian expectations." He called on the international community to make an initiative to halt the repeated Israeli brutality against the Palestinians and called on the UN to move quickly in order to halt the Palestinian bloodshed and to protect the innocent among elderly, women and children. He called on Britain to play a greater role in the ME peace process on the ground that this country is qualified to do so, due to its close relations with the Middle East states."

http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2205/html/national.htm

Quote :

"Support for UAE Ties ABU DHABI, UAE, Feb. 1--Iran and the United Arab Emirates discussed the current level of their political relations in a meeting between Iran's new envoy to Emirates Mohammad Ali Hadi and UAE's Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Muhammad Al-Haidan here Monday. UAEÕs deputy foreign minister welcomed Iran's new ambassador and emphasized that Abu Dhabi-Tehran ties are satisfactory, IRNA reported. Al-Haidan then accompanied the new Iranian envoy to the tomb of the late founder of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, where Hadi paid homage to the late UAE leader, laying flowers on his grave and signing the memorial notebook. The Iranian envoy also referred to the efforts made by Sheikh Zayed for rapid and long-lasting advancement of United Arab Emirates, expressing sympathy with the UAE nation and government on his demise. The mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran's mew ambassador to the UAE officially opened last Saturday. "

2/22/2006 8:34:17 AM

Quote :

"Other than the fact that UAE has "arab" in its name, no one has really offered a legitimate reason why this deal shouldn't go through."

i listed like 5 reasons and none of them had to do with them having arab in their name

stop bitching and read

2/22/2006 8:40:54 AM

Quote :

"Almost all our west coast ports are foreign owned and about half of our east coast ones are."

The issue isn't over the ports being foreign owned/operated, the issue is over the UAE specifically controlling them. There are a lot of people claiming that the UAE had a fairly substantial role in the 9/11 attacks, saying they are linked to terrorism, that UAE was used as a base of operations for 9/11, and that a lot of the funding for it came from there. Many are also saying that it's a huge "middle-man" for illegal arms trafficking.

2/22/2006 9:25:35 AM

And if they pull any of that shit, we will arrest them.

2/22/2006 9:56:12 AM

Once again

The PORT AUTHORITY is responsible for all shipyard security.

Not the shipyard, but the PORT AUTHORITY.

If rich arabs with billions of dollars wanted to find a way to smuggle terrorist agents into the US, they could probably do it more easily without a high profile port.

2/22/2006 10:06:11 AM

^^Or give them a medal of freedom.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ^^]

2/22/2006 10:06:51 AM

this can either elevate the risk of another attack (easier for a turrist to penetrate the company, and thus the US port),

or it can serve as an opportunity for the US (at a high cost) to monitor the activities and/or infiltrate would be harm-doers.

also, countries/societies with good trade relations generally do not go to war with each other



while i'm at it, a couple of sayings come to mind

-keep your friends close, and your enemies closer

-the best way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend

2/22/2006 11:25:39 AM

Quote :

"Once again The PORT AUTHORITY is responsible for all shipyard security. Not the shipyard, but the PORT AUTHORITY."

you know who they have to work with and need complete cooperation from? thats right

2/22/2006 11:47:25 AM

You're so increadibly stupid.

It doesn't matter who they have to work with. All that matters is that the Port Authority has final say on all security measures. Furthermore, they aren't going to import a boat load of Ragheads to work the docks. They're going to hire local. So stfu already.

2/22/2006 11:53:41 AM

they also have to screen who they employ
i dont trust a country that has no problems with the taliban, a country that didn't help after 9/11

2/22/2006 11:57:25 AM

You seem to have no qualms trusting companies that work with dictators and oppressive regimes.

And for the record, the freedom fighters who created the taliban were US supported.

So again, stfu, because you never ever ever ever ever have a clue about anything.

2/22/2006 11:59:53 AM

actually i do have problems with that, and have said nothing that would make you think otherwise

NO SHIT SHERLOCK, REALLY?

dumbass

2/22/2006 12:13:34 PM

hahahah

Quote :

"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."

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-22-10-50-29

2/22/2006 12:26:39 PM

Backpedallin

A play right from the JohnHDurrrr playbook.

2/22/2006 1:13:48 PM

im just going to ignore any continued fallacies from you as trolling

2/22/2006 1:14:45 PM