KidRocks
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- right here
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Or with Richard Perle who wanted to sell te US military's phone network to a Chinese military intelligence agency against the recommendations of the FBI and the NSA. Funny how such a guy got to be in charge of the President's Defense Policy Advisory Board.Captain America said:Maybe he's trying to compete with Clinton selling technology to China?
Captain America said:Maybe he's trying to compete with Clinton selling technology to China?
Captain America said:Ohhhhhh....you said pee-pee. I'm gonna tell.:mrgreen:
KidRocks said:What's this?
President Bush gave "his approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports."?
Presisdent Bush is selling out to the country that is responsible for 9/11?
That plan sound treasonous and dangerous to me.
What's up with that? Anyone else confused here?
ludahai said:Leave it to a resident Leftist to completely mischaracterize thus entire deal. First of all,the White House isn't selling anything here (contrary to your thread title). OPERATIONS of these ports are already run by a British company that is being run by an Emirati government-owned company.
Also, while the record of the UAE in the war on terror is questionable at best, it by no means was responsible for 9/11.
Having said that, I don't agree that the US government should approve the transfer. From what I have read from links provided by another poster, Bush hasn't made a final approval yet. It has merely been recommended.
Now, I know you have an irrational hatred of President Bush. However, letting that hatred cause you to misrepresent the situation does not do you any credit at all.
python416 said:The quoted may have mixed up Saudi Arabia for UAE, but selling land or just operations to a foreign government is a stupid idea - UK or UAE.
However, the Bush agenda isn't designed to make the country more secure; it is designed to pursue neo-conservative idealogic directives. In the case it is privatization at detriment to real security. It is pathetic, but not surprising.
If the administration wants to make the borders more secure, they would nationalize the services - but that would be a neo-con no no. One only has to look at the southern US border to realize that in a choice between serving corporate interests and security, they will side with big business.
ludahai said:Well, President Bush (for all of his imperfections) is doing a far better job than his predecessor who didn't give national security the time of day.
ludahai said:Leave it to a resident Leftist to completely mischaracterize thus entire deal. First of all,the White House isn't selling anything here (contrary to your thread title). OPERATIONS of these ports are already run by a British company that is being run by an Emirati government-owned company.
Also, while the record of the UAE in the war on terror is questionable at best, it by no means was responsible for 9/11.
Having said that, I don't agree that the US government should approve the transfer. From what I have read from links provided by another poster, Bush hasn't made a final approval yet. It has merely been recommended.
Now, I know you have an irrational hatred of President Bush. However, letting that hatred cause you to misrepresent the situation does not do you any credit at all.
ludahai said:They are already run by a foreign corporation
Well, President Bush (for all of his imperfections) is doing a far better job than his predecessor who didn't give national security the time of day.
I wouldn't argue against making sure they were run by a properly vetted American company, but I would be opposed to nationalizing them and having them run by the government.
Hoot said:Lies, lies, lies.
I'm not speaking to you in particular, ludahai, but I'd be very interested to know if Republicans have orgasms when they continue to lie about the Clinton record on terrorism?
Try not to get any on the keyboard.
I will say that this topic should be the story everyone is talking about, and certainly not the Cheney hunting accident.
python416 said:So regulation is what you are proposing? Or are you suggesting that we do not apply national standards to the operation of border entry points? If you do think national standards should be applied, what method of verification do you think would work best?
ludahai said:American companies should run operations. ALL employees should be US citizens and receive background checks. Appropriate authorities in Customs should set all regulations in coordination with Homeland Security and they should be enforced. Any company NOT in compliance loses the contract, PERIOD.
13 Febuary 2006
DP World to acquire P&O
We are delighted to announce that the shareholders of P&O have approved the sale of shares to DP World. At an EGM held in London this afternoon, the shareholders voted over 99% in favour of the DP World acquisition. This means that the process of transferring ownership can now begin, and we expect for this to be confirmed by the court on 2nd March 2006.
Paul said:Exactly, I think it is sad if we have to rely on another country to run our ports. We are supposed to be a superpower yet this increasing outsourcing of jobs, other countries running some ports, etc, is leading to the overall strength of our country diminishing.
I am very concerned about this trend in America and hope that ends soon.
cnredd said:Keep in mind that Dubai World isn't just taking over ports...
They are taking over a company that happened to control those ports...
This is nothing more than a result from the takeover...
If HomeDepot buys Ace Hardware, they get their stores...But if Ace Hardware also owned a hammer making factory, Home Depot ends up getting that too...
BFD...:shrug:
Personally?...I think there should've been something in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.'s contract that states that the ownership of these ports automatically goes back to the Government if that company loses control of them...
debate_junkie said:he invited Charles Schumer on to discuss this very issue, and I found myself nodding in agreement to everything they said. Both are calling for a US company with US citizens securing those ports, and both are in disbelief that the White House has taken a blase faire attitude about the potential scenario's that could arrise...
KidRocks said:What's this?
President Bush gave "his approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports."?
Presisdent Bush is selling out to the country that is responsible for 9/11?
That plan sound treasonous and dangerous to me.
What's up with that? Anyone else confused here?
.
Not at all...jamesrage said:The government should not be allowing our ports to be sold to foriegn entities.What next are going to give military contracts to china and let them make our equipment?
ludahai said:STOP THE PRESSES! I AGREE WITH REP. CHUCK SCHUMER?!?!?!?! WOW!!!!
Seriously, are you sure he said US companies and not the US government? Wow, this proves that even die-in-the-wool New Leftists are right ONCE IN A WHILE!
cnredd said:Not at all...
Clinton already sold them the information so the could make the equipment for themselves...:shrug:
debate_junkie said:I am positive he said US companies... cuz if he'd said US government, I think Savage would have ripped him a new one on that one LOL
jamesrage said:,bush is letting our ports be sold to foriegn interest,
Both parties have basicly let our jobs walk out of the country,and certian politicians feel the need to bash our troops bash our country and every other ****ed up thing under the sun.Surely outsourcing the government would not make things any worse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?