I'm curious on the takes of the various factions here about this issue.
All I hear from the left is "I can't believe they would sell our ports to shady countries!"
All I hear from the right is "I can't believe they would think that our president would jeopordize the securty of this country!"
----------------------------------------------------------
and you still dont get it?
you should watch farenheight 911 and also the movie syeriana. while more,s conclusion of the facts is certainly biased, the facts he presented are just that, facts.
the oil industry and our government has been cultivating ties with Saudi Arabia since the discovery of oil there in 1936. spending billions to buy our way into the largest supply of energy on the planet.
at the same time, spending billions to make sure WE have the favor of Saudi Arabia and not our competitors, China and Russia. the whole Russian/Afganistan thing was just an extension of OUR effort to prevent our potential enemy,s from getting a foot hold in the middle east. WE helped inflame religious gronds to make the people rise up against Russia, even though Russia had full permisssion of the leaders in Afganistan at the time.
funny how that is hurting us now, isnt it?
the oil industry, and thus the political puppets whose pockets are lined with oil industry lobiest dollars, would sell your airports to them too if it gained them any more leverage to securing some more black gold.
the Bush familey has long standing ties with the Saudi royal familey, on both a personel level and a professional level. something More pointed out in his film.
now lets take a look:
Bush is from big oil
Rice is from big oil
Cheney is from big oil
and some of you idiots cant figure out how a muslim country, where 9 of the 11 people who killed thousands in New York came from somehow managed to get in controll of 6 major shipping ports in the U.S.?
follow the money.
the moral majority working...hard.....for you.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- They're sellin' our ports, maw!
They're sellin' our ports, maw!Follow
shadowrelm wrote:
you should watch farenheight 911 and also the movie syeriana. while more,s conclusion of the facts is certainly biased, the facts he presented are just that, facts.
Lol... You're right! We should all get our information about political events by watching movies about them...
Go check out the Bowling for Truth site for a detailed and step by step analysis of just how wrong both Moore's conclusions and his methods are.
I just find it histerical that you actually advocate that people obtain information by watching films. You are aware that films on a topic are by their nature biased, right?
Quote:
the oil industry and our government has been cultivating ties with Saudi Arabia since the discovery of oil there in 1936. spending billions to buy our way into the largest supply of energy on the planet.
And that's bad how? Are you arguing that our industries should make no attempt to secure resources for us? Sounds like exactly what they *should* be doing...
Quote:
at the same time, spending billions to make sure WE have the favor of Saudi Arabia and not our competitors, China and Russia. the whole Russian/Afganistan thing was just an extension of OUR effort to prevent our potential enemy,s from getting a foot hold in the middle east. WE helped inflame religious gronds to make the people rise up against Russia, even though Russia had full permisssion of the leaders in Afganistan at the time.
funny how that is hurting us now, isnt it?
funny how that is hurting us now, isnt it?
Seems like it worked though, right? If your theory is correct, then we did exactly what we intended to do. I'm still not sure how you can seriously argue that even though we buy only a small percentage of oil from the middle east that we're somehow also "hogging" it from the rest of the world, but again, that's our government acting on behalf of us. Ever wonder why gas costs about half as much in the US as in the rest of the industrialized world? Hmmm...
Quote:
the oil industry, and thus the political puppets whose pockets are lined with oil industry lobiest dollars, would sell your airports to them too if it gained them any more leverage to securing some more black gold.
Considering that the oil industry doesn't own the airports, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. It does remind me of my favorite commedian quote though:
"You think that baby is cute? Well, you do know that baby would strangle you to death for a cookie if it could...".
Quote:
the Bush familey has long standing ties with the Saudi royal familey, on both a personel level and a professional level. something More pointed out in his film.
So do many other political groups/families/etc. You are aware that the Clintons and most of their staff was on the board of the Carlyle Group back in the 90s, right? It's incredibly blind thinking that makes you assume that *only* the Bush family is involved with Saudi interests. The fact is that there are more traceable US policy changes that can be directly attributed to Clinton action on behalf of the Saudi's then there are of Bush doing the same.
But you don't seem to ever notice that do you?
Quote:
now lets take a look:
Bush is from big oil
Rice is from big oil
Cheney is from big oil
Bush is from big oil
Rice is from big oil
Cheney is from big oil
What do you mean "from big oil"? Isn't that a vague statement?
The fact that Bush's family owned and operated a very small oil company has *zero* to do with anything. Big business has interests and lobbys government on behalf of those interests. That happens regardless of what the backrounds of the politicians in question are. If anything, someone with a backround "in oil" is more likely to spot an unreasonble request then someone who isn't. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Quote:
and some of you idiots cant figure out how a muslim country, where 9 of the 11 people who killed thousands in New York came from somehow managed to get in controll of 6 major shipping ports in the U.S.?
Are you now claiming that 9 out of the 11 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were from the United Arab Emirates? Weren't you saying that about Saudi Arabia before this issue came up? If the UAE was such a huge threat, why is it that you have *never* mentioned that country in connection with terrorism until now?
Sounds more to me like it's an arab country, and therefore in your mind they're all the same, so it's "bad"...
Yeah. And liberals are all about equality and not discriminating against people. Gotta love mass hypocricy...
Do you know anything about the Dubai Ports World corporation? Do you know how many ports around the world they manage? Do you know how many countries they manage ports for? Do you know their track record? Do you know what exactly is involved in terms of their power with the ports (ie: It's not security for one!)?
My bet is that you don't know any of those things. But because the company is an arab company, that's enough for you to say it's bad. Yeah. Let's not actually look at the facts. It's enough that they're arab!
And you are trying to say it's because of the conservatives that some Arabs hate us? Ever think it's this thinly veiled bigotry that flys out of the so called "liberal thinkers" in the US that is to blame? They're good enough for us to buy oil from, but not good enough to be business partners.
Sounds a lot like Black people being good enough to vote for us, and good enough to provide services for, but not good enough to sit in our cabinet offices, or hold any position of power in our government. Sound familiar? That's the hypocricy of the Left for you. It's not about equality or fairness. It's about convincing people of those things, while they ***** over everyone who isn't white and wealthy... But they've got you and other's like you so twisted around you actually think this is done by the conservatives... Laughable...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
And you are trying to say it's because of the conservatives that some Arabs hate us? Ever think it's this thinly veiled bigotry that flys out of the so called "liberal thinkers" in the US that is to blame? They're good enough for us to buy oil from, but not good enough to be business partners.
Edit: Likewise, Shadow's "this deal is all about the conservatives and oil" bit is equally demented
Edited, Fri Mar 3 02:41:34 2006 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I wrote in another forum on this topic:
I wrote:
I don't want to fall into the trap of blindly criticizing Bush on this one, because denying the sale of the port operations in this instance is similar to the type of xenophobia that lead to things like Japanese interment camps and Arab-Americans being attacked after 9/11.
Although this isn't Arab-Americans controlling the ports, it's a foreign country.
I guess I have yet to see an extensive analysis of to what degree this would affect national security. How many ports are already controlled by non-American interests, and are we worried about those? How friendly/hostile is UAE to terrorists? etc.
Although this isn't Arab-Americans controlling the ports, it's a foreign country.
I guess I have yet to see an extensive analysis of to what degree this would affect national security. How many ports are already controlled by non-American interests, and are we worried about those? How friendly/hostile is UAE to terrorists? etc.
And since I can't be bothered to look up the answers to those questions myself, and since the media hasn't spoonfed them to me yet, I declare myself apathetic on the issue.
This tidbit is interesting though:
Link
A.P. wrote:
While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.
"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."
"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."
The Tribune from Chicago wrote:
Americans, by a greater than three-to-one margin, oppose the proposed deal that would allow a state-owned Arab firm to assume control of operations at several U.S. ports, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The takeover, undergoing a 45-day review by administration officials, faced broad opposition — substantial majorities of Democrats and independents, along with a solid plurality of Republicans, said they do not want the agreement to proceed.
[...]
The Dubai deal faced opposition from virtually every broad segment of Americans. Overall, just 17 percent of those surveyed said they supported the agreement, while 58 percent opposed it; the rest said they did not know enough to express an opinion.
[...]
Men were more likely to support the deal than women, and those with college degree more likely than those without. But majorities of all four groups were against it.
More than three-fifths of those surveyed in the East, Midwest and South disapproved of the deal; it drew somewhat more backing in the West. But even in that region, it was opposed, 45 percent to 26 percent.
Democrats opposed the deal by almost 10-1, independents by nearly 4-1.
[...]
A majority of Republican women and a slight plurality of GOP men said they were against the takeover; overall, Republicans opposed it, 49 percent to 29 percent.
The takeover, undergoing a 45-day review by administration officials, faced broad opposition — substantial majorities of Democrats and independents, along with a solid plurality of Republicans, said they do not want the agreement to proceed.
[...]
The Dubai deal faced opposition from virtually every broad segment of Americans. Overall, just 17 percent of those surveyed said they supported the agreement, while 58 percent opposed it; the rest said they did not know enough to express an opinion.
[...]
Men were more likely to support the deal than women, and those with college degree more likely than those without. But majorities of all four groups were against it.
More than three-fifths of those surveyed in the East, Midwest and South disapproved of the deal; it drew somewhat more backing in the West. But even in that region, it was opposed, 45 percent to 26 percent.
Democrats opposed the deal by almost 10-1, independents by nearly 4-1.
[...]
A majority of Republican women and a slight plurality of GOP men said they were against the takeover; overall, Republicans opposed it, 49 percent to 29 percent.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
The Tribune from Chicago wrote:
Americans, by a greater than three-to-one margin, blindly mistrust any towel-headed Arab...
Pretty much, I guess.
That "All them Arabs are Muslim terrorists out to kill us!" rhetoric that served so well when defending wars and prison scandals is coming back as a real *****, huh?
That "All them Arabs are Muslim terrorists out to kill us!" rhetoric that served so well when defending wars and prison scandals is coming back as a real *****, huh?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Go check out the Bowling for Truth site for a detailed and step by step analysis of just how wrong both Moore's conclusions and his methods are.
-----------------------------------------------
i did.
what i found. as you say, his conclusions are biased. and they shreded his methods for presenting them.
what i also found, and what YOU and every other republican dont want to acknoledge.....they did not refute a single fact presented in his film. not a one.
they attacked his conclusions, they attacked the way he presented his facts, but they did not refute a single fact in his film.
you missed that i guess? dont feel bad, most republicans miss what they dont want to see in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------
i did.
what i found. as you say, his conclusions are biased. and they shreded his methods for presenting them.
what i also found, and what YOU and every other republican dont want to acknoledge.....they did not refute a single fact presented in his film. not a one.
they attacked his conclusions, they attacked the way he presented his facts, but they did not refute a single fact in his film.
you missed that i guess? dont feel bad, most republicans miss what they dont want to see in the first place.
Are you now claiming that 9 out of the 11 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were from the United Arab Emirates? Weren't you saying that about Saudi Arabia before this issue came up? If the UAE was such a huge threat, why is it that you have *never* mentioned that country in connection with terrorism until now?
--------------------------------------------------
you really dont pay attention do you? or, like most republican spinn doctors, do you think of you attack everything people will be so confused they wont know what to think?
you think by seperating the UAE from Saudi Arabia people will go..."what the freck?". tell us where the UAE is located? tell us who is in controll of the UAE? tell us who the major players are in the UAE? who sets the policy of the UAE?
it is like saying haliburton screwed up, not its parent company.
they are one in the same for the rest of you. for gbaji, really, dont you get tired of being on the defensive? you would think republicans would get so tired of defending their ***** ups they would revolt against the leadership and find someone COMPETANT to carry their flag, but no, they go right on screaming the party line right to the bitter end.
another little thing for you GBAJI, there are more republicans against this deal than there are democrats against it. compute that in the toaster you call a brain, then try to fit it into your "its a liberal attack against bush" agenda. now, the dems AND repubs are out to get you. feeling alone yet?
--------------------------------------------------
you really dont pay attention do you? or, like most republican spinn doctors, do you think of you attack everything people will be so confused they wont know what to think?
you think by seperating the UAE from Saudi Arabia people will go..."what the freck?". tell us where the UAE is located? tell us who is in controll of the UAE? tell us who the major players are in the UAE? who sets the policy of the UAE?
it is like saying haliburton screwed up, not its parent company.
they are one in the same for the rest of you. for gbaji, really, dont you get tired of being on the defensive? you would think republicans would get so tired of defending their ***** ups they would revolt against the leadership and find someone COMPETANT to carry their flag, but no, they go right on screaming the party line right to the bitter end.
another little thing for you GBAJI, there are more republicans against this deal than there are democrats against it. compute that in the toaster you call a brain, then try to fit it into your "its a liberal attack against bush" agenda. now, the dems AND repubs are out to get you. feeling alone yet?
Shadorelm and Gbaji: the icing and sprinkles on this cake of a thread.
Bush Pwned
I've just heard Bush lost.
OhdearwhatashamenevermindTM
Quote:
Leading members of George W Bush's Republican party are moving to block a deal which would give a Dubai-based firm control over six US ports.
OhdearwhatashamenevermindTM
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
tell us where the UAE is located? tell us who is in controll of the UAE? tell us who the major players are in the UAE? who sets the policy of the UAE?
Just north of Saudi, along with just about all the Arab nations friendly to the U.S. (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman)
Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the ruler of the U.A.E., who has always been a strong supporter of the war on terror.
Major players? Try the british and american oil companies, who own pretty much the entire country.
Who sets the policy? Sheikh Zayed and the extremely U.S. friendly government.
And all this **** about some of the money fromt he 9/11 terrorist attacks coming through Dubai.
Dubai happens to be the banking center for the entire middle east, practicaly all the money that comes out of there goes through Dubai. And the accusation that Dubai has hampered our backtracking the banck accounts? Switzerland has been doing that for years and nobodys made a fuss.
And its all a moot ******* point anyway since the Dubai company is just buying out the leadership, all the AMERICAN personnel and supervisors in the ports are keeping their jobs so there is not gonna be any real change it all.
Jophiel wrote:
The Tribune from Chicago wrote:
Americans, by a greater than three-to-one margin, oppose the proposed deal that would allow a state-owned Arab firm to assume control of operations at several U.S. ports, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
And I wonder why that is? I remember the first news report on this issue. It went something like this:
I'm watching TV. One of those short bits comes on that tells you about what's coming up in the next hour on the new. This is "literally" what it said:
"New deal that would give control of US ports to our enemy. See more nex hour..."
Gee. I wonder why so many people's first reaction was negative...
And Nobby? That's posturing. Everyone in Congress is doing the "leaf in the wind" bit so as to appease their riled up constituents. Each committee is busily writing up some bill or provision to oppose it. But then over the next 2-3 weeks an arrangement will be made with "new assurances" that security wont be compromised, and the contract transfer will happen. Of course, it'll look essentially identical to the original contract, but no one will notice or care because the public will think that it's safe now that Congress took a second look at the deal before allowing it to go through.
I'd be incredibly suprised if this goes down anyway other then that. While everyone wants to look tough on terror and strong on security, everyone also knows that actually blocking this deal is a killer for US foreign trade and politics. You simply can't legistlatively block this deal, no matter how misguided "the people" are about it. Right now, the whole plan is to figure out how to make the deal work while making it look like they're opposed to it.
Tell you what. In 6 weeks, we'll see who was right.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Tell you what. In 6 weeks, we'll see who was flip-flopping traditional republican "Jobs fo' Ameh'cuns" rants.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
gbaji wrote:
Everyone in Congress is doing the "leaf in the wind" bit so as to appease their riled up constituents. Each committee is busily writing up some bill or provision to oppose it.
Ahhhh... the ole "The evil liberals are making the Republicans go against the president!" arguement. Never gets old, does it?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Tell you what. In 6 weeks, we'll see who was flip-flopping traditional republican "Jobs fo' Ameh'cuns" rants.
*cough* The whole "outsourcing our Jobs!" argument is traditionally Democrat in origin. Or have you not been paying attention over the last few years...?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But... but... Bill Clinton seems to like the deal...
doesn't that mean it's ok?
Chicago Sun Times wrote:
While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was ripping President Bush's handling of American ports management, Bill Clinton was pushing for one of his favorite White House aides to be hired to defend the deal. The former president proposed to the United Arab Emirates his onetime press secretary, Joe Lockhart, as Washington spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
[...]
According to well-placed UAE sources, the former president made the suggestion at the very highest level of the oil-rich state. The relationship between him and the UAE is far from casual. The sheikdom has contributed to the Clinton Presidential Library, and brought Clinton to Dubai in 2002 and 2005 for speeches (reportedly at $300,000 apiece). He was there in 2003 to announce a scholarship program for American students traveling to Dubai. Certainly, the emirs would pay the closest attention to any request from the former president. Lockhart did confer with DP World officials, but the UAE sources said Lockhart's asking price was much too high.
[...]
According to well-placed UAE sources, the former president made the suggestion at the very highest level of the oil-rich state. The relationship between him and the UAE is far from casual. The sheikdom has contributed to the Clinton Presidential Library, and brought Clinton to Dubai in 2002 and 2005 for speeches (reportedly at $300,000 apiece). He was there in 2003 to announce a scholarship program for American students traveling to Dubai. Certainly, the emirs would pay the closest attention to any request from the former president. Lockhart did confer with DP World officials, but the UAE sources said Lockhart's asking price was much too high.
doesn't that mean it's ok?
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Everyone in Congress is doing the "leaf in the wind" bit so as to appease their riled up constituents. Each committee is busily writing up some bill or provision to oppose it.
Ahhhh... the ole "The evil liberals are making the Republicans go against the president!" arguement. Never gets old, does it?
Has nothing to do with party loyalties. Has everything to do with appeasing the public though.
I'm not sure what's "wrong" with the idea that Republicans in Congress might not agree with a Republican in the White House? They are two different branches of the government, with two different ways of operating, two different areas of power, and two different sets of pressures.
I also never cease to find amusement at how when Republicans all agree on something, they're "in lockstep", but when they don't they're "in disarray" (accompanied by rhetoric like "Even members of <his/her> own party don't agree!").
Members of Congress have to take public positions opposing the deal, because they're likely getting thousands of phone calls and letters from their constituents demanding it. It has nothing to do with whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. If you're in Congress you've got to respond to direct public pressure in a way you don't have to when you're in the White House. That's part of why those two branches operate differently. Nothing really surprising about this.
Again. Let's see what happens in 6 weeks time. My bet is that the deal will go through, after Congress has given some amount of lip service to "making sure our ports are secure". They all know it will go through. They just have to go through the motions of opposition so they can say they opposed it this fall.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what's "wrong" with the idea that Republicans in Congress might not agree with a Republican in the White House?
Even now, in one breath you say how it's it's perfectly cool that the Republicans disagree with Bush on this while, in the next, you make sure to reassure us that the objections are just "lip service" meant to reassure a naive public. Why can't the answer be "The Republicans opposing this honestly believe that Bush is off his rocker for even thinking it was a good idea and will fight it tooth and nail"?
Quote:
I also never cease to find amusement at how when Republicans all agree on something, they're "in lockstep", but when they don't they're "in disarray" (accompanied by rhetoric like "Even members of <his/her> own party don't agree!").
Quote:
Members of Congress have to take public positions opposing the deal, because they're likely getting thousands of phone calls and letters from their constituents demanding it. It has nothing to do with whether one is a Republican or a Democrat.
Quote:
Again. Let's see what happens in 6 weeks time. My bet is that the deal will go through, after Congress has given some amount of lip service to "making sure our ports are secure".
Edited, Wed Mar 8 22:42:24 2006 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I can't read the Tribune-goon, unless I register, which I'm too lazy to do-goon.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Dragoon?
Recent Visitors: 411
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (411)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- They're sellin' our ports, maw!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC