House panel votes 62-2 AGAINST Dubai buying port! - Page 2

theirishavenger · 03-09-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeverett

glad to see there is atleast one other perosn with a brain out there.

X3. DPW is only OWNED by Dubai, not MANAGED. It's actually managed by a group of multinationals, including Americans, English, Australians, etc.

Looks to me like Congress are the dumbarses on this one. This whole thing has been a bigoted, racist cesspool since it came to light. Christ.

jeverett · 03-09-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theirishavenger

X3. DPW is only OWNED by Dubai, not MANAGED. It's actually managed by a group of multinationals, including Americans, English, Australians, etc.

Looks to me like Congress are the dumbarses on this one. This whole thing has been a bigoted, racist cesspool since it came to light. Christ.

exactly this is a completely racist knee jerk reaction to them being arab owned.

**War Eagle** · 03-09-2006, 06:28 PM

I don't think giving port control to DPW would have been a threat but I'm glad it's not happening for other reasons. Bush has turned our foreign policy into "Muslims are bad." He went nuts trying to tie al Qaeda to every country in the Middle East. Now he's going back on that and saying "Okay, MOST Muslims are bad but these guys are alright, even if they did support al Qaeda until we asked them to stop." Bush has been pandering to the lowest common denominator for 6 years, now he's trying to explain to these people that it's okay to trust certain Muslims and he'll veto any stop measure that hits his desk. I'm beginning to wonder if the guy isn't cracking up.

**kaketj** · 03-09-2006, 07:39 PM

first,blah,blah,blah this is all this thread is,yeah bush is a prick,so was clinton hell the way the U.S. Goverment has been run for the last fifty years makes me sick

the American public needs to think about the big picture "for the people,by the people" we need to ask a couple of basic questions, does this benfit the American people?,and does this open the American people to Harm? how friken hard is it to look out for our own intrests? the rest of the world puts their interest first,maybe we should too!!! I used to be interseted in a global economy and the possible benifits,then I woke the **** up! foriegn powers want us gone

always have always will! it's like we are slowly greasing are PC arrses up for the taking, I think maybe we should stop selling the soil we hold so dear and start keeping what we conquer

"Iraq,the future vegas"

must of been the chilli

odanny · 03-09-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaketj

foriegn powers want us gone

always have always will!

Of course they do. The Chinese will bury us with cheap imports, but Dubai and these other oil bloated pigs in the Middle East have other ideas, and it is strange how the BushBots all lined up to support his incredibly stupid decision to lease these ports to Dubai, which is similar to asking a fox to guard your henhouse.

Even more funny is how the BushBots say these people have either an impeccable security record or that they don't handle port security in the first place.

Like that makes me feel better already! Our ports are largley unprotected RIGHT NOW, since we have been getting bled white in Iraq (another wonderful Bush decision) we have done nothing since 9/11 to shore up port security in this country, and if that is not bad enough we try and let an Arab country with a history of voting against us and with other radical Arab nations an overseer of some of our busiest ports.

Were it not for a near revolt among his own party Dumbya would have railroaded this deal through.

trailboss · 03-10-2006, 04:49 AM

The way I figger it, our insecurity is outsourced.....

No need to outsource our security too...

I think there is much, much more to this deal then meets the eye. There is NO WAY Bush could NOT know there would be HUGE outcry against this deal, with the current state of affairs in the middle east. He HAD to know....so why would they try to push this deal through? Makes no sense.

The UAE is a country that doesnt recognise Israel as a legitimate nation. But they do recognize Al Queada as a legitimate entity! Their banks were used to funnel money for the 9/11 criminals. All kinds of other shady sh*t too....I dont get it.

I voted for GWB (twice) and I support a lot of his policies....I'm no starry eyed Bush lover though...one has to critically analyze things to get to the nitty gritty and I'm coming up empty on this deal...

Roll Tide · 03-10-2006, 05:03 AM

I was just as surprised to learn the English were the owners as I was to find out Dubai was to be next in line. When you are pushing National security it makes no sense to have ANY other country protecting our ports. American companies should be protecting American ports. I am glad to see Dubia backed out. I now hope those in power allow an American owned company to pick it up.

a84jeepCJ7 · 03-10-2006, 05:55 AM

One common misconception that is being reiterated on this board is that Dubai will control the security of the ports. Not so. The cotract with Dubai is for the OPERATIONS. Just the day-to-day operations are under the contract. Security of the ports and the inspections of the vessels will continue to be the job of the U.S. Coast Guard.

BusterXJ95 · 03-10-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a84jeepCJ7

One common misconception that is being reiterated on this board is that Dubai will control the security of the ports. Not so. The cotract with Dubai is for the OPERATIONS. Just the day-to-day operations are under the contract. Security of the ports and the inspections of the vessels will continue to be the job of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Wrong, and the people who say that KNOW they are lying and thank God the American people can see through that B.S. Day to day security, such as who's allowed into and out of the port, movement of containers, hiring of security guards, etc., IS (or WOULD have) been under the control of DP World. The Coast Guard and Customs DON'T sit at the port gates with guns stopping people and things from coming and going, or checking ID's of the people who come and go.

The Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection typically respond only if something goes wrong or if something suspicous comes up. That request usually comes from...the company running the port. Remember, DP World is in the business of making money, and they won't do anything to slow down commerce, like constantly calling USCG or CBP for every situation. Customs and Border Protection only inspects a minimal amount of material that comes through the ports. Right now, both the Coast Guard and CBP are so short staffed that they only respond to a minimum of situations, just like the situation at the Mexican border.

ironmike · 03-10-2006, 08:35 AM

A little research on the Bush family's relationship with the UAE's royals indicates why he was so eager to jump into bed with them on this deal. Their families go back a ways, even some Bin ladens in the mix. Oilmen speak the same language.... greed and money. Money green is the the flag they rally around. Bush thought on a wink and nod he could push this through. This whole issue is really not about security or race, it's about the corrupting influence of perceived absolute power on behalf of the president and his cronies. I am glad to see that the checks and balances of our constitution work. Our leaders should be above reproach, not above the law or the best interests of their constituents.

What ever happened to Mr. Lincoln's "of the people, by the people" ideology of democracy? We as american citizens deserve...and should demand more from our elected leaders than we have received for a very long time now.

Regardless of your politics, I have a hard time understanding why the intelligent people of our country can't see the the big oil/Halliburton agenda that our current leadership is all about. Our government is loaded with conflicts of interests with their politics and business dealings. Their self-serving agendas are fleecing the american citizens of millions.....possibly billions of tax dollars and resources that could truly make this country safe from terrorism.

I am a vet, and I support our troops. I support a foreign policy that protects american citizens. As an american that has worked in the intelligence field (ironic term) I can say that we have made little gains in actual security due to a policy that is bloated and ineffective.

a84jeepCJ7 · 03-10-2006, 09:21 AM

The Coast Guard’s Role in Homeland Security. The Coast Guard, which is
a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),1 is the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)
specifies five homeland security missions for the Coast Guard: (1) ports, waterways, and coastal security, (2) defense readiness, (3) drug interdiction, (4) migrant interdiction, and (5) other law enforcement, including foreign fishing vessel incursions.

With regard to port security, the Coast Guard is responsible for evaluating, boarding, and inspecting commercial ships approaching U.S. waters, countering terrorist threats in U.S. ports, and helping protect U.S. Navy ships in U.S. ports. A Coast Guard officer in each port area is the Captain of the Port (COTP), who is the lead federal official for security and safety of vessels and waterways in that area. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-340) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-295), the Coast Guard has responsibility to protect vessels and harbors from subversive acts. The Coast Guard issued final rules implementing MTSA on October 22, 2003 (see 68 Fed. Reg. 60448).

jeverett · 03-10-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a84jeepCJ7

The Coast Guard’s Role in Homeland Security. The Coast Guard, which is
a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),1 is the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)
specifies five homeland security missions for the Coast Guard: (1) ports, waterways, and coastal security, (2) defense readiness, (3) drug interdiction, (4) migrant interdiction, and (5) other law enforcement, including foreign fishing vessel incursions.

With regard to port security, the Coast Guard is responsible for evaluating, boarding, and inspecting commercial ships approaching U.S. waters, countering terrorist threats in U.S. ports, and helping protect U.S. Navy ships in U.S. ports. A Coast Guard officer in each port area is the Captain of the Port (COTP), who is the lead federal official for security and safety of vessels and waterways in that area. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-340) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-295), the Coast Guard has responsibility to protect vessels and harbors from subversive acts. The Coast Guard issued final rules implementing MTSA on October 22, 2003 (see 68 Fed. Reg. 60448).

hey, quit posting useless facts you are getting in the way or rightious racist hatrid and bigotted vicory by posting facts that prove their points wrong

a84jeepCJ7 · 03-10-2006, 05:24 PM

I know...darn me for using hard facts to support my statements. We all know that you should only use baseless statements and personal opinion in a discussion. I'm sorry. I should have known that using facts is unfair.

odanny · 03-11-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a84jeepCJ7

I know...darn me for using hard facts to support my statements. We all know that you should only use baseless statements and personal opinion in a discussion. I'm sorry. I should have known that using facts is unfair.

Especially when you are pulling out some Coast Guard regulation without explaining what your point is. If you had one.

odanny · 03-11-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironmike

A little research on the Bush family's relationship with the UAE's royals indicates why he was so eager to jump into bed with them on this deal. Their families go back a ways, even some Bin ladens in the mix. Oilmen speak the same language.... greed and money. .

Indeed. That's what talks. Money. Bush is in bed with Saudi Arabia and this oil bloated bunch of oilmen from the UAE as well. We give you guns and money, you give us your oil. And we will throw in control of the ports it is headed to.

What more needs said?

03-09-2006, 07:39 PM	#19
kaketj beef jerky and grease.... Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: washington(vancouver) Posts: 532 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	first,blah,blah,blah this is all this thread is,yeah bush is a prick,so was clinton hell the way the U.S. Goverment has been run for the last fifty years makes me sick the American public needs to think about the big picture "for the people,by the people" we need to ask a couple of basic questions, does this benfit the American people?,and does this open the American people to Harm? how friken hard is it to look out for our own intrests? the rest of the world puts their interest first,maybe we should too!!! I used to be interseted in a global economy and the possible benifits,then I woke the **** up! foriegn powers want us gone always have always will! it's like we are slowly greasing are PC arrses up for the taking, I think maybe we should stop selling the soil we hold so dear and start keeping what we conquer "Iraq,the future vegas" must of been the chilli __________________ "shoot first,we have shovels" 2004 X w/ RESF 4.5- super 44/44 w/arb 35x12.50R15mt/r- all armored up! Warn 9.5 ti(front) 9.5xp(rear) (SOLD) 1999 Cherokee sport (build in progress) New toy. ZO6

03-10-2006, 04:49 AM	#21
trailboss Registered User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 687 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	The way I figger it, our insecurity is outsourced..... No need to outsource our security too... I think there is much, much more to this deal then meets the eye. There is NO WAY Bush could NOT know there would be HUGE outcry against this deal, with the current state of affairs in the middle east. He HAD to know....so why would they try to push this deal through? Makes no sense. The UAE is a country that doesnt recognise Israel as a legitimate nation. But they do recognize Al Queada as a legitimate entity! Their banks were used to funnel money for the 9/11 criminals. All kinds of other shady sh*t too....I dont get it. I voted for GWB (twice) and I support a lot of his policies....I'm no starry eyed Bush lover though...one has to critically analyze things to get to the nitty gritty and I'm coming up empty on this deal... __________________ 98 Sahara An educated, armed populace cannot be enslaved.

03-10-2006, 05:03 AM	#22
Roll Tide Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: columbia sc Posts: 617 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	I was just as surprised to learn the English were the owners as I was to find out Dubai was to be next in line. When you are pushing National security it makes no sense to have ANY other country protecting our ports. American companies should be protecting American ports. I am glad to see Dubia backed out. I now hope those in power allow an American owned company to pick it up.

03-10-2006, 05:55 AM	#23
a84jeepCJ7 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Jacksonville, NC Posts: 95 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	One common misconception that is being reiterated on this board is that Dubai will control the security of the ports. Not so. The cotract with Dubai is for the OPERATIONS. Just the day-to-day operations are under the contract. Security of the ports and the inspections of the vessels will continue to be the job of the U.S. Coast Guard.

03-10-2006, 08:35 AM	#25
ironmike Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dickson, Tennessee Posts: 11 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	A little research on the Bush family's relationship with the UAE's royals indicates why he was so eager to jump into bed with them on this deal. Their families go back a ways, even some Bin ladens in the mix. Oilmen speak the same language.... greed and money. Money green is the the flag they rally around. Bush thought on a wink and nod he could push this through. This whole issue is really not about security or race, it's about the corrupting influence of perceived absolute power on behalf of the president and his cronies. I am glad to see that the checks and balances of our constitution work. Our leaders should be above reproach, not above the law or the best interests of their constituents. What ever happened to Mr. Lincoln's "of the people, by the people" ideology of democracy? We as american citizens deserve...and should demand more from our elected leaders than we have received for a very long time now. Regardless of your politics, I have a hard time understanding why the intelligent people of our country can't see the the big oil/Halliburton agenda that our current leadership is all about. Our government is loaded with conflicts of interests with their politics and business dealings. Their self-serving agendas are fleecing the american citizens of millions.....possibly billions of tax dollars and resources that could truly make this country safe from terrorism. I am a vet, and I support our troops. I support a foreign policy that protects american citizens. As an american that has worked in the intelligence field (ironic term) I can say that we have made little gains in actual security due to a policy that is bloated and ineffective.

03-10-2006, 09:21 AM	#26
a84jeepCJ7 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Jacksonville, NC Posts: 95 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	The Coast Guard’s Role in Homeland Security. The Coast Guard, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),1 is the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) specifies five homeland security missions for the Coast Guard: (1) ports, waterways, and coastal security, (2) defense readiness, (3) drug interdiction, (4) migrant interdiction, and (5) other law enforcement, including foreign fishing vessel incursions. With regard to port security, the Coast Guard is responsible for evaluating, boarding, and inspecting commercial ships approaching U.S. waters, countering terrorist threats in U.S. ports, and helping protect U.S. Navy ships in U.S. ports. A Coast Guard officer in each port area is the Captain of the Port (COTP), who is the lead federal official for security and safety of vessels and waterways in that area. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-340) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-295), the Coast Guard has responsibility to protect vessels and harbors from subversive acts. The Coast Guard issued final rules implementing MTSA on October 22, 2003 (see 68 Fed. Reg. 60448).

03-10-2006, 05:24 PM	#28
a84jeepCJ7 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Jacksonville, NC Posts: 95 Profile Gallery Classifieds My Jeeps	I know...darn me for using hard facts to support my statements. We all know that you should only use baseless statements and personal opinion in a discussion. I'm sorry. I should have known that using facts is unfair.