• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

United States Soverignty For Sale

Calm2Chaos said:
That has ties to terrorism and terrorist.... EEEeeeee....NO

What "ties to terrorism" does Dubai have? That terrorists passed some money and shipped some weapons through it? I'm sure the same can be said of the US government. That doesn't mean they have terrorist sympathies, it just means they have a relatively laissez-faire business environment.
 
Kandahar said:
What "ties to terrorism" does Dubai have? That terrorists passed some money and shipped some weapons through it? I'm sure the same can be said of the US government. That doesn't mean they have terrorist sympathies, it just means they have a relatively laissez-faire business environment.

And you are willing to allow their laissez-faire business practices to increase the vulnerability of our ports, which are already known to be at very high risk? If they knowingly allowed the terrorists to pass money and weapons through their country, they have ties to terrorism. If it happened unknowingly, they have poor security. Either way, them having control of our ports would increase our risk. That's unacceptable.

I thought Bush was working hard to keep us safe? This deal will NOT increase our safety at all, on the contrary, it will make us more vulnerable in one of our weakest areas.

NO.
 
Kandahar said:
What "ties to terrorism" does Dubai have? That terrorists passed some money and shipped some weapons through it? I'm sure the same can be said of the US government. That doesn't mean they have terrorist sympathies, it just means they have a relatively laissez-faire business environment.

Was their government aware and passively supporting terrorist financial activity. That is the question that has to be asked. Dont forget that people within the governmental structure of Saudi Arabia, supposedly one of our biggest allies, also helped to finance 911.
 
Man alive, we surely are in a pickle here. On one hand, you have to be very concerned about turning the ports over to an Arab country, but on the other, you have to want to include these folks in our capitalist society, and hope they find that more pleasing then blowing us to kingdom come.:shock:

I think the solution is to change the rules we have in place now, and to let Congress have more oversight. The way it is set up now, with the secrecy and behind the scenes decision making, this just won't do.
 
Deegan said:
Man alive, we surely are in a pickle here. On one hand, you have to be very concerned about turning the ports over to an Arab country, but on the other, you have to want to include these folks in our capitalist society, and hope they find that more pleasing then blowing us to kingdom come.:shock:

I think the solution is to change the rules we have in place now, and to let Congress have more oversight. The way it is set up now, with the secrecy and behind the scenes decision making, this just won't do.

However much you would like to believe that this is a Capitalist move, we are dealing with what is now a state-owned company, and that is not Capitalism.

However, on your second point, its a damn good one, and I totally agree with you.
 
NYStateofMind said:
And you are willing to allow their laissez-faire business practices to increase the vulnerability of our ports, which are already known to be at very high risk?

Unless I'm missing something here, their domestic business practices are irrelevant. They'll still have to comply with American laws.

NYStateofMind said:
If they knowingly allowed the terrorists to pass money and weapons through their country, they have ties to terrorism. If it happened unknowingly, they have poor security.

The 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year prior to the attack. I'm sure that in that time they certainly must have passed some money through America. Does that make America a terrorist nation?

NYStateofMind said:
Either way, them having control of our ports would increase our risk. That's unacceptable.
I thought Bush was working hard to keep us safe? This deal will NOT increase our safety at all, on the contrary, it will make us more vulnerable in one of our weakest areas.

NO.

I see no reason to believe that the fact that this company is Dubai-based will make our ports less safe. If it's simply a matter of competence, that's a different matter, as it would be with any company. But the nationality of this company is not particularly relevant; Dubai isn't exactly known for being a hotbed of terrorism. Quite the opposite.
 
Kandahar said:
What "ties to terrorism" does Dubai have? That terrorists passed some money and shipped some weapons through it? I'm sure the same can be said of the US government. That doesn't mean they have terrorist sympathies, it just means they have a relatively laissez-faire business environment.

Again this:

-The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

Is why we don't hand access of our ports over to them. To me this, for the time being is reason enough to play on the side of caution.
 
danarhea said:
However much you would like to believe that this is a Capitalist move, we are dealing with what is now a state-owned company, and that is not Capitalism.

However, on your second point, its a damn good one, and I totally agree with you.

I didn't mean to suggest they are, but our hope is that these deals will lead them to a free and Democratic system in the future. That said, if we deal with them the way they are set up now, I wonder what will motivate them to change in the future? As I said, it's a very delicate, and difficult situation, I'm just glad I don't have to make those decisions.
 
Kandahar said:
Unless I'm missing something here, their domestic business practices are irrelevant. They'll still have to comply with American laws.
Their business practices have everything to do with it. They plan on doing business here, and their past business practices are absolutely relevent.



Kandahar said:
The 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year prior to the attack. I'm sure that in that time they certainly must have passed some money through America. Does that make America a terrorist nation?

No, that makes our security poor. You ignored the other possibility. Want to argue that our security was adequate? Or maybe the reforms to our laws that have been passed since were unnecessary?


Kandahar said:
I see no reason to believe that the fact that this company is Dubai-based will make our ports less safe. If it's simply a matter of competence, that's a different matter, as it would be with any company. But the nationality of this company is not particularly relevant; Dubai isn't exactly known for being a hotbed of terrorism. Quite the opposite.

If you can't see why it will make our ports less safe, you just don't want to see it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the company in question is Dubai-based, it has to do with the things that have been pointed out.....their past history of poor security and/or complicity with terrorists and those illegally transferring nuclear technology, along with the already highly vulnerable status of our ports. Only about 2% of the cargo coming through our ports is inspected. It is a major weak area in our homeland security, which is well known. ANY increase in risk to our ports is unacceptable. We aren't doing enough now to secure our ports. If there is reason to believe that this company might allow questionable cargo to come into our ports (which is what the evidence suggests to me,) this deal should not fly.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Do the british churn out terrorist that are killing civilians and US soldiers?
I don't know if any of those in the London subways were US soldiers, but otherwise, "Yes"...

Let me ask you...Since the ports are currently British owned, would it be fair to say that they can't have British born people of Arab decent work there?...

Calm2Chaos said:
-The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
ummmm...And the US is one of the last countries, if not THEE last country, to recognize Cuba as a legitimate government...Point?...

Calm2Chaos said:
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
Was this done with permission from the government or would have they prevented it if it were known?...Because I can name a whole helluva lot of "key transfer points for illigal shipments" around the world...Are they ALL the governemnt's fault?

Calm2Chaos said:
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
And the Swiss banking system...And the German banking system...And the American banking system...

Calm2Chaos said:
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Much like the Swiss...


Calm2Chaos said:
Profiling.. If it works, I see no problem with it. Has nothing to do with the color. Lets find another "darker" country that doesn't have terrorist ties and sell it to them.
Your attempting to "profile" a company that just happens to be the fourth largest in the world when it comes to port management...They have ports in over a dozen countries...

Are those countries not concerned about their "soverignty"?...Are WE now just as bad as them?...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
I don't know if any of those in the London subways were US soldiers, but otherwise, "Yes"...


Please show me proof that british soldiers are puposely targeting civilians
cnredd said:
Let me ask you...Since the ports are currently British owned, would it be fair to say that they can't have British born people of Arab decent work there?...


It's a chance I would not like to take. Byut if they are british born then I would think you have to. Of course I would want an extremely in depth security check done on him/her
cnredd said:
ummmm...And the US is one of the last countries, if not THEE last country, to recognize Cuba as a legitimate government...Point?...


Means nothing to this debate.... Move on
cnredd said:
Was this done with permission from the government or would have they prevented it if it were known?...Because I can name a whole helluva lot of "key transfer points for illigal shipments" around the world...Are they ALL the governemnt's fault?


Dunno. I know it happened it it's happened more then one and in various situations. Thats more then enough reason to not allow our weakest point to be controlled by a possible x factor
cnredd said:
And the Swiss banking system...And the German banking system...And the American banking system...


They are not in charge of the ports nor looking to buy them nor in a land or region racked with terrorism or terrorist. Has nothing to do with the debate .. plz move on

cnredd said:
Much like the Swiss...


Again .. nothing to do with this debate

cnredd said:
Your attempting to "profile" a company that just happens to be the fourth largest in the world when it comes to port management...They have ports in over a dozen countries...


Good... then not controlling ours will not be that big of a deal. I have no problem with pofiling at this time. Searching the blue haired old lady getting on the plane as you let the nervous muslim man through is stupid and a PC joke. I see no reason to hand the keys to the house over to someone we are not completely or mostly comfortable with

cnredd said:
Are those countries not concerned about their "soverignty"?...Are WE now just as bad as them?...:roll:

Don't know if there concerned or not. I am not going to try to speak for them or there feeling or there concerns. These are my concerns so I can speak accurately about them
 
danarhea said:
The White House is defending the sale of 6 American ports to the Middle East nation of Dubai by saying that ownership of the ports by an Arab nation is not a threat to US security. How about a threat to US soverignty? The security issue is a red herring compared to the real issue. I have been saying for years that the Bush administration is the antithesis of Conservatism. For those who would argue otherwise, since when do Conservatives favor selling American soverignty to other nations?

This is going to end up in court. Not only are lawmakers seeing red over this sellout, but an American company is now suing to block the foreign takeover of our ports.
I herd that it was only the container lots which were being sold, not the entire port. Is this true?
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Please show me proof that british soldiers are puposely targeting civilians
Don't change your original contention in mid-argument...This is EXACTLY what you wrote...

Calm2Chaos said:
Do the british churn out terrorist that are killing civilians and US soldiers?
The British HAVE done so...Every member identified in the London bombings were British...

My answer still stands...

Calm2Chaos said:
It's a chance I would not like to take. Byut if they are british born then I would think you have to. Of course I would want an extremely in depth security check done on him/her
Which is the EXACT same point I make when referring to the Dubai World Copany...Do an extremely good, rigorous, and indepth security check on them...If they clear it, then give them the greenlight...Just like you would any other company...:shrug:

Discounting people just because of their heritage or location is pretty pathetic, especially when you're dealing with capitalistic swines...like us...

Calm2Chaos said:
Dunno. I know it happened it it's happened more then one and in various situations. Thats more then enough reason to not allow our weakest point to be controlled by a possible x factor
And if "x factor" gets properly checked out, it's not an "x factor" anymore...

Calm2Chaos said:
Good... then not controlling ours will not be that big of a deal. I have no problem with pofiling at this time. Searching the blue haired old lady getting on the plane as you let the nervous muslim man through is stupid and a PC joke. I see no reason to hand the keys to the house over to someone we are not completely or mostly comfortable with
Might I point out to you that Dubai World does NOT deal with the security of these ports?...That if left up to the local port authority and the Coast Guard...

In generic terms, all they do is move containers from boats to trucks...There probably isn't one company in the world that does this that investigates what's inside these containers...It's not their job...It's the job of both local & Federal law enforcement...

Calm2Chaos said:
Don't know if there concerned or not. I am not going to try to speak for them or there feeling or there concerns. These are my concerns so I can speak accurately about them
Concerns are always usually a good thing...But make sure you know the facts beforehand...

This company (Dubai World) is one of the largest companies in the world when it comes to ports...Do you realize that company would be sunk(pun intended) if something malicious happened?...The damage that they would wreck on their own company...and their own country in general, would destroy their whole infrastructure...

Look back to my earlier post about the things Dubai has been doing in their own country...things that defy the radical Islamist's goals...

And you try to place them in the same catagory...
 
Jerry said:
I herd that it was only the container lots which were being sold, not the entire port. Is this true?
I don't know the EXACT details, but essentially correct...

I live in Phiily, which is one of these locations Dubai World might have through their merger with the British-owned P&O, which already owns the ground and equipment...

This doesn't mean that the whole Philly water-border is controlled by one company...Only certain areas...The boat unshipping at a Dubai World controlled port might be right next to another company controlled port doing the exact same thing...

Much like a McDonald's sitting right next door to a Burger King...
 
Jerry said:
I herd that it was only the container lots which were being sold, not the entire port. Is this true?

From the link I gave in the first post:

The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
 
Now the Republican leadership in the House AND Senate is threatening legislation if the President doesn't put a hold on the port deal. The President is threatening to veto said legislation. Hmmmmm....

Looks like we have a staring contest.....who's going to blink first?

Bush is worrying about "sending a terrible signal". I'm a LOT more worried about what the terrorists will send into our ports.

Is he really that interested in fighting a major battle with the Congress over something like this? He must be in a big hurry to accelerate his lame duck status. :doh

Let the battle begin.
 
Captain America said:
I know plenty of diehard republicans plenty pissed off over this move too. This transcends politics. This is beyond democrat/republican banter. This is yet another middle finger flipped in the face of Americans from the current administration. Only this time, he's flipped in the face of the people who have been supporting him as well. Bad move.

Certainly there will be a few Bush cultists that support this move. or any other move he makes, but for the most part I have yet to talk to one person on either side of the aisle that is happy about this move.


“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

Be not deceived for the lovable Royal parrot reiterated it for you and corrected what International Court Lurch actually meant to reference:

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...on.transcript/

Having voted for Max Cleland as Secretary of State (a job he was good at), I am far from a diehard, but how in the hell could I be against the Democrat’s ICC support way back when, when the Rome Treaty didn’t even mention the Supreme Court, and therefore was undeniably treasonous to the July 4, 1776 principle of “the consent of the governed,“ and be for this deal with the ports?

Impossible.

There are simply some manufactures, and management, and defense of our Constitution (consent of the governed), that we simply can’t continue to abandon to foreigners.

If the Canadians want to come in and manage our coal mines, fine, but this port thing is NUTS!

Hillary just got elected President, the vote is a mere formality now.
 
DivineComedy said:
“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

Be not deceived for the lovable Royal parrot reiterated it for you and corrected what International Court Lurch actually meant to reference:

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...on.transcript/

Having voted for Max Cleland as Secretary of State (a job he was good at), I am far from a diehard, but how in the hell could I be against the Democrat’s ICC support way back when, when the Rome Treaty didn’t even mention the Supreme Court, and therefore was undeniably treasonous to the July 4, 1776 principle of “the consent of the governed,“ and be for this deal with the ports?

Impossible.

There are simply some manufactures, and management, and defense of our Constitution (consent of the governed), that we simply can’t continue to abandon to foreigners.

If the Canadians want to come in and manage our coal mines, fine, but this port thing is NUTS!

Hillary just got elected President, the vote is a mere formality now.
Dont count on it. In regard to many of her stances, she is Bush Lite, depending on what public opinion is at any given time. I think Condi Rice would beat the crap out of Hillary.
 
Last edited:
cnredd said:
Do I raise an eyebrow?...Yes!...

But if our whole position in the global economy is to change the Middle East and to include them, I find it very hypocritical to turn our backs on those who jump on our ship...

Dubai World is actually an exception to the Middle Easterm rule...They are ALL ABOUT including themselves in the global community...To put them in the same sentence with terrorists is more insulting to them then them taking over any ports...

Read the article in the first post again...This transaction has been "rigorously reviewed"...as it should be...

Many here have already come to a different conclusion based on their geography and race...

Bullshit...


This is not a McDonalds or some other fast food chain,this is not a automaker,nor is this some US based corporation being bought out.THis is a entry point into our country for really big *** cargo ships.I do not care how repuatable the company is nor do I care if right now this very moment in time they are our allies,They are a foreign entity they have no business owning and controlling a entry point into this county.What next do you want to privatize our border and border check points and let mexico run the border?How about we let China make our weapons for our troops or how about we let France make our Armored Vehicles?
 
jamesrage said:
This is not a McDonalds or some other fast food chain,this is not a automaker,nor is this some US based corporation being bought out.THis is a entry point into our country for really big *** cargo ships.I do not care how repuatable the company is nor do I care if right now this very moment in time they are our allies,They are a foreign entity they have no business owning and controlling a entry point into this county.What next do you want to privatize our border and border check points and let mexico run the border?How about we let China make our weapons for our troops or how about we let France make our Armored Vehicles?

Dont forget to put the holders for the white flags on them. :rofl
 
danarhea said:
Dont forget to put the holders for the white flags on them. :rofl
:funny that was funny.
 
Looks as if it's a done deal, Bush says he'll veto any attempt to derail the deal!:shock:
 
hmmm I have to admit that I would prefer that shipping operations in US ports be controlled by US companies. I didn't realize there were british companies controlling some of our ports until this story started coming out.

I have to admit, even being a strong Bush supporter, the idea of handing over control of our ports to an Arab company furrows my brow. I do admit that I know next to nothing about how the ports are currently run or how they have been run so I don't feel I have enough knowledge regarding the situation to start raising hell but it still boggles my mind and isn't easily digestable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom