| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Comments:
<0> timur -- politics in that area... they no longer do ya know
<1> the Swiss didn't have their citizens flying planes into US buildings
<1> Kali: so it's said, I'm not sure if it's so true
<0> Timur - but the Swiss laundered money in their secret banks
<1> hence, scrutiny.
<1> right, and they need to have more transparency
<2> actually the Swiss propensity is for hiding blood gold
<1> that too
<3> well, they were known for numbered bank accounts in the past
<4> like Twobar I'd be upset to learn that the a Swiss state-run company was going to be put in charge of some US ports... but I don't think I would have because it wouldn't have been news :p
<3> "swiss bank accounts" are worthless for privacy, these days
<5> if any terrorist activity results in this port deal, and it is linked back to the government of the UAE, I say we just take their entire country as payment
<0> TImur - it was scrutinized by several investigations -- and if you'd pay attention to the extras they agreed to - in dealing with OUR security people it might help
<5> i think thats only fair
<3> compared to "offshore" (ie, non-western) banks
<2> and when you deal in money.....only the money counts
<1> it's funny how it's suddenly racist to oppose this deal, but then the same people are happy when we're blowing up people from Yemen to Iraq to..etc
<1> that's not racist.
<2> the Carib banks are taking over....
<5> war isn't racist
<2> Switzerland shares info now
<5> it is a struggle of man
<6> Why do we want other countries in charge of things like ports, when we live in a time of 9/11 ? What is this , rocket science ?
<0> cry -- ya... some of the islands
<1> Kali: the extra I saw was that the UAE got to keep all their business transactions there so US courts couldn't subpoena them
<2> Twobar...let them admin the ports...
<3> we dont live in the time of 9/11!
<2> they do not own them nor do they own their security
<4> I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who'd love to be put in charge of those ports.
<6> occ lives in the time of free *** with men
<0> Two - no one really does - but this is only considering loading and unloading of ships -- not security stuff they would be involved with
<1> Twobar: right
<3> Twobar lives in the time to make the donuts
<7> Twobar: because they are willing to pay us many MILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$....
<2> they will realize that we can be real SOBs wehn we want
<0> its the shipping unions that are concerned for their UNION jobs ya know
<2> hey cmos
<6> Cry, "owning" them makes no difference. Renting is bad enough to allow whatever any bad guy wants , into our ports.
<1> right, there can't possiby be a relationship between security and loading/unloading things in ports.
<1> oh, except a nuclear weapon.
<6> cMoss yep. and I bet you they paid off a bunch of bureaucrats to sneak this by
<8> I think is shocks Amrericans to see how important industries are run by foreign corporations. Like when a British firm wanted to take over one of our major news agencies.
<2> they will be locked down as any other foreign nationals would be in that venue
<7> CryHavoc: hey
<2> no one allowed off the ships
<1> cargo
<5> if you think for two seconds that terrorists couldn't off load a nuke weapon now, you are sadly mistaken
<1> is the issue, as much as anything
<1> Rusty: right, that's a problem
<6> Cry, they only check 5% of crates now. And the crates are the size of an apartment. If something is snuck in there, let it be americans who blew it.
<8> But then, US corporations have taken over critical business in other nations too: like telecommunicaions and mineral resource extractions.
<2> if they do....then we get carte blanche...
<4> America's biggest weakness it that we're for sale.
<0> too many paranoid people
<1> so, like, making it possibly more likely seems.. pretty stupid. Unless, of course, it's not more likely, but that's yet to be proven.
<9> America's greatest weakness is the disintegrating family.
<2> if they used that admin to detonate a nuke on our soil....
<5> there is nothing "more likely" about it
<1> yeah, 9/11 and WMD proliferation do tend to make people paranoid
<2> we would not go invade a country...
<1> http://www.lastbestchance.org
<5> we would handle the security of the ports, just like we do now
<0> Timur extremely so
<5> in fact i bet security would be HIGHLY tightened
<6> BlueJeans, it is up to each country to decide for itself to allow other countries to run their infrastructure. there is no hisotorical perspective that anything BETTER will come out of us letting another country do this
<1> what's extreme, vs,. the real risks involved?
<7> Twobar: If the americans are the ones who blew it then we would have to blame ourselves...this way we can blame them...you know...the blame game.
<6> cMoss hehe yep
<3> i dont blame nobody for nuffin
<0> Timur - look I'd rather see the States where each port is located to be in charge of the cargo loading and unloading - but from all I've been reading -- UAE has a better track record in that area than the ones we have now...
<6> occ blames his hand
<0> Timur - and the problem is -- the US doesn't have a company that does that...
<3> wait, wait
<3> hold up
<3> twobar, that didnt make any sense, and im calling you out.
<6> UAE has a better track record in running ports and can probably do the job better, but that is not the oint.
<10> Timur: are you admitting the tens of billions we spend annually, on an infrastructure to oversee and regulate aquistions and transactions between major corporations [ including this sale from an UK company to a UAE company ] is inneffective?
<6> I got a dozen more
<0> Two - right now that IS the point -- that is being totally overlooked
<10> twobar: hell, I'ld bet even the French army could run the US ports with more security than now...
<1> Kali: so far, yeah
<6> UAE can probabl do the job better, but I still want americans running the infrastructure of our own country. Have we not given away far too much of ourselves, our production, our ***ets, already ?
<0> Timur -- so far...
<6> Lupine hehe yep
<11> Twobar, but all these jobs have been done by all these people from different countries all this time, and have any of them been directly involved in terror? Have they ever been a threat?
<12> Disrespect
<1> it's a two-tiered debate. Can the UAE be trusted, on one hand; and what do we need to improve ourselves, on the other
<10> Timur: if so, I agree. We need to to eliminate *ALL* those departments from our govn't, and slash the US budget by 50 billion [ and p*** the savings onto the tax payers ]
<0> TWO -- its not a give away -- they would merely be owners of shipyard unions that load and unload, security remains as always with coast guard and customs agents
<6> TheTailor, I dont find that important. I want america run by americans, not by others, who will put their own countries first
<5> if the UAE wanted, it would be much cheaper to blow up our military base thats already in their own country
<2> Twobar has a valid point though..one on which I agree...
<5> and it would severely harm our position there
<2> we might deal with the UAE firefighters...but that country also has a lot of arsonists
<10> Cry: but it is hypocritical to accept it for the UK/China/etc owning ports, but not the UAE thou
<0> Twobar that would be great - but ya gotta find a US company that will do so...
<11> Twobar, then you don't mind paying through the nose? You know they are going to rake us if there isn't competition.
<13> think the Dubai Ports criticism is mere grandstanding?
<2> Lupine...I say let them admin them...
<2> PROVIDED
<13> someone on a forum stated this, and I kinda agree.
<0> tweek - it looks like it is...
<6> Kaliuna, undoubtedly any american company that was infiltrated by enemies, could just as easily do damage as any fundamentalist islaamicst could, but I still want it run by americans
<10> Tailor: heh, we're already getting ****ed by the Temasters
<2> a. ) none of their nationals are allowed to debark from shiping ports
<13> the Teamsters still exist?:
<13> the Teamsters still have power?
<10> Twobar: I don't trust the teamsters to put security at the forefront of their work
<6> TheTailor, I dont see how shipping charges will be affected
<13> the Teamsters still have ****ing membership?
<2> b.) make sure that others own other close by ports
<10> tweek: at the ports? hell YES
<0> TWO -- well the coast guards are americans, the customs people are americans the UNIONS (teamsters) are american as well
<6> I dont trust teamsters either. Flaming far lefties
<6> but at least their americans, sort of
<2> example..if this company gets Miami...
<0> Two -- UNIONS strong ties to Dems -- so Dems are laying all kinds of craziness out there
<10> twobar: thanks to the teamsters, we can not fire any employee not willing to put forth 110% to make our ports safe
<2> they do NOT get J'ville
<3> republicans have strong ties to christian fundamentalists
<3> OMG
<2> look at the possible other side too...
<13> I'd hope that America wouldn't have that type of authority...
<7> CryHavoc: The papers say the dock workers and all are going to be the same people.
<6> Just like this war, I just have a strong FEELING about this. I oppose the iraq war for the same reason as this ports debacle, a very strong feeling that it is bad. And, much of the time, my feelings are right, Iv'e learned that over the last 55 years.
<10> btw: i know this first hand is a m***ive problem at Miami international airport.. unions are protecting employees who are a m***ive security hole
<3> wait, wait
<2> the last thing they will ever do on this earth...will be to detonate a weapon at our port
<0> tweek -- especially when we heard Hillary complaining of course it was just fine when Bill sold 60 F16s to Dubai (UAE)
<3> twobar, you oppose the iraq war?
<13> though obvious loopholes and security risks need to be corrected by any means necessary
<5> i mean think about it, what would be the sense in blowing up an american city for 6 billion dollars, knowing your country would be nuked or otherwise "owned" when you can blow up a HUGE *** air base or naval base or both that we have in their country for practically "free"
<10> occ: i opposed the _manner_ and _timing_ of it
<6> occ I have opposed the Iraq war since the day we went into Iraq frm Afghanistan
<7> Twobar: you and I are nearly the same age.
<13> Dubai Ports owns F-16s?
<0> tweek - they could employ those scanners like they have inone of those CA ports...
<6> cMoss, you old pharte :)
<13> I don't think security needs to be taken that far...
<0> tweek - Clinton sold 60 F16s to Dubai in 1998
<14> 80
<7> hehe
<3> i opposed the iraq war initially, but changed my stance
<5> we wouldn't declare war on UAE if they blew up our air base/naval base, we just wouldn't use them as an ally anymore
<13> Dubai Ports or UAE?
<3> (that takes balls)
<6> clinton sold top dollar F16's to Dubai, that is right
<15> Twobar had to be escorted out of Hillary Clinton's office for demanding nude pictures of the senator
<0> tweek -- Dubai --
<6> either Dubai or UAE, I'm not sure
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#goal
#beginner
#politics
#beginner
#windows
meatmembers.com
unresolved external symbol _Direct3DCreate9 release
#flash
#politics
#dreamweaver
|
|