[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.    

[/quote]

Looks like we got a Bush drone on our hands.  MikeB it certainly sounds like you march to the beat of your leader, for better or worse.  Sorry it had to be George W. Bush.  Man what a bummer.

[/quote]

Well, if you can't discuss facts, dude, you can always write a post void of thoughtful content.....

Seriously, what is your point here? A UK company is OK with you, a Chinese company is OK with you, but any company from the Arab world isn't?

MikeB, are you employed by the Bush administration or something? Your

unwavering support is admirable but even many Republican congressmen

are calling for a little more investigation.



Didn’t the UAE refuse to release banking records for bin Laden after 9/11?

Wasn’t an attempt to take out bin Laden by Clinton abandoned because a

Prince from the UAE on a hunting trip with bin Laden? (bin Laden was

considered our public enemy #1 even back then) Weren’t two of the 9/11

hijackers actually from the UAE?



I mean come on, don’t you agree we should feel a little uncomfortable with

the situation?

[quote=csmelnix]Easier because of what I said already on my earlier post.  Does it really take a rocket science to figure out that one employee with ties to "terr" as your boy says, who can simply observe how things are done and where the lapses are ...[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And you figure that couldn't be done in ports owned by <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK or Chinese companies? BTW, still working on my Richard Reid question?

BTW, it’s pretty funny to hear a guy arguing on the side of the “all them there Arabs is terrorists” make fun of “terr”…

[quote=csmelnix]

 Granted, nothing is in place now to prevent that one employee and I am not happy with ports being owned by any outside firm; ..

[/quote]

Ahhhhh, the truth is spoken... then why not admit nothing of consequence will change? Why not tell the truth about how 99.99% of this uproar is demagoguery? Some of our recent threats have been from those we least suspect. “Normal” folks like the European woman suicide bomber in Iraq, Reid, and the crew in Ohio. There’s nothing I know of to keep those people from taking any sort of job that allows them to monitor port security operations, whether the sale goes through or not.

BTW, the ports aren’t “owned” by outside firms.

[quote=csmelnix]

but given UAEs ties, history, position on terror and terrorist sponsors, I will take the Chinese and British firms over UAE any day.[/quote]

"Position on terror and terrorist sponsors"? Yes, before 9/11 the UAE recognized the Taliban and there was money laundering there. Then again, the guys we arrested the other day in Ohio weren’t from the UAE…

By all accounts Dubai has been a strong ally in the GWOT since 9/11, which along with Qatar, sets it in a different category than their neighbors in the Gulf. I just can’t see, since nothing of consequence is changing here, how we can accept the guys with nukes pointed at us as port managers, but we reject the UAE because they’re Arab.

This, imho, is a situation where disingenuous and cowardly politicians (and they’re not the same crowd), whose constituents were shocked to hear that ANY foreign companies manage ports here, are playing to ignorance, baseless fear and racism.

Now, if one of them would stand up and say that ports are too sensitive to be managed by ANY private enterprise not US owned, or that significant background checks will be required of any port employee, I’d be willing to listen.

[quote=csmelnix]

Spell out the hypocrisy:

1.  Neocons and GW are all for going into Iraq on outdated, cherry picked, questionable intelligence.  Ok with invading a country with minimal ties to "terr", zero involvement in 9/11, no ties to AL Qada.

2.  Iraq reasons behind the invasion become evidently false, yet they all continue to brag about the need to remove the menance and bring democracy to the mideast.

[/quote]

You mean a rehash of your usual talking points, long ago dismissed? Repeat after me, it doesn't matter how it's spun, our intel agencies told Bush Saddam had WMD. THAT was their conclusion and the conclusion of every other major intel group, including the French, on the planet.

[quote=csmelnix]

3.  Here's the hypocrisy:  You can be ok with invading a foreign nation on the info listed above BUT shrug shoulders when it hits your own border. [/quote]

Here's a latin term you should look into "non sequitur"....

[quote=csmelnix]

 UAE at a minimum has similiar circumstances in supporting state sponsor terror regimes/countries as Iraq pre invasion. 

[/quote]

You're delusional. Yes, they did recognize the Taliban, and there was money laundring and the A.Q. Kahn connectrion WAS there (note, he was a rouge Pakistani, I can only guess what you think we should do wqith them)...

HOWEVER, since 9/11 and the "you're with us or the terrorists" they've been strong help.

[quote=csmelnix]

 Have put up many bars to help us fight terror in the area.

[/quote]

Name these "bars"....

[quote=csmelnix]

You are OK with this nation running port operations in our homeland?

[/quote]

If they really did "run port operations", and didn't simply schedule the loading and unloading of ships with the USCG and DHS watching, along with thousands of US longshoreman, I just might.

[quote=csmelnix]

  Would you be ok with Iran or Syria running them or how about Iraq under Hussein?  After all, they're only Arab nations too and we don't want to be rascists here. 

[/quote]

If you're really comparing the UAE to Saddam's Iraq or Syria you're just to buried in hysteria to bother with.

[quote=skeedaddy]Didn't the UAE refuse to release banking records for bin Laden after 9/11? [/quote]

Did they? Tell me more.

[quote=skeedaddy]
Wasn't an attempt to take out bin Laden by Clinton abandoned because a Prince from the UAE on a hunting trip with bin Laden?

[/quote]

IFIRC it was a member of the Saudi Royal family.

[quote=skeedaddy]
(bin Laden was considered our public enemy #1 even back then) Weren't two of the 9/11 hijackers actually from the UAE? [/quote]

And Richard Reid was from the UK, and, omg, THEY RUN PORTS HERE NOW!!!!!!!!

[quote=skeedaddy]
I mean come on, don't you agree we should feel a little uncomfortable with the situation? [/quote]

The problem with your logic is the change of ownership between the UK company and the UAE company changes nothing about how the ports are run or the security there.

Do you really want to tell the entire Arab world to get bent?

The choice here isn't between a UAE gang coming in and sealing of the port from US security or having Capt. America run the port. It's between having one group own the company or another.

I hate to surrender my bulldog title, but you'll all have to continue this without me. Duty (and a G&T) calls elsewhere.

BTW, csmelnix, are you really the fed-up conservative you tell us you are (despite the constant recitation of Democrat talking points), and if so, is it just by chance that some guy at the lefty “In These Times” forum is using your screen name? Also, just out of law school? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

My apologies in advance if it’s a coincidence.

I hate to surrender my bulldog title, but you'll all have to continue this without me. Duty (and a G&T) calls elsewhere.

I gave up wasting my time on these guys.  It is like trying to reason with the cat.   And I have a single malt scotch waiting for me.

MB.

I don't recall in these times and the screen name saying anything about law school.  So you can tell good arab nations from bad ones.  I love your Richard Reid too - BTW was he Muslim or not?  Hmmmm!

Go back correspondence school bozo....

I am also a avid fan of Michael Savage and listen religiously to G Gordon Liddy on my Sirrius radio - what does that make me?

I was very disturbed by this whole issue, but the more I read the FACTS about Dubai’s support of our efforts(including hosting an air force base and turning over AQ suspects to the US and Pakistan) I feel a little more comfortable about the deal.

It wouldn’t hurt for us to have good allies in the Arab world, if that is possible.

Still-it is a little unsettling.  Worries me that it could make us more vulnerable.

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

MB.

I don't recall in these times and the screen name saying anything about law school. 

[/quote]

I think this is what they cal a "non-denial denial".  Look, I couldn’t care less if you’re a regular contributor to the “In These Times” loony left forums. It simply calls into question your “I’m a disgusted conservative” line. It’s a line often used by the usual critics who think that repeating the usual Democrat talking points, all very shop-worn, sound better with a patina of respectability by way of a false pedigree from the right. It also frees them from the messy business of having to defend anything at all, much less the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, the Michael Moore/George Soros/ Cindy Sheenhan debacle that is the modern Democrat party.

BTW, a simply Google search turn of a “law school newbie” using the same screen name on other forums.

[quote=csmelnix]  

So you can tell good arab nations from bad ones. 

[/quote]

No, they’re all bad ones.  Real sophisticated view of the world you have there…

[quote=csmelnix]  

I love your Richard Reid too - BTW was he Muslim or not?  Hmmmm!

[/quote]

I see, the fact he was a <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK citizen means nothing, the fact that he was a Muslim means everything.

Well, in that case, knowing that the UK company that currently fills the role that DP would has a strict “we hire no Muslims” policy makes me feel better. What’s that? They have no such policy? So you mean every foreign company that manages ports in the US could, in theory, already have “terr” guys working there?

So we’re back to square one, this deal changes nothing…

[quote=csmelnix]  

Go back correspondence school bozo....

[/quote]

That’s an interesting quote from someone who claims to understand the PD for AD officers. It’s almost as if you didn’t know that not everyone who applies to take CGSOC via correspondence before their YG goes to the board for selection is allowed to; that there’s (or at least was) a residency period to the correspondence course and that taking the course that way allows you a better chance of attending an equivalent school with another branch of the military, say the Navy or Marine CGSC.

I guess you didn’t learn it all in those four years….

Look, I’m not going to waste any more time with this political stuff, especially with people who pretend to be what they aren’t and/or who are simply consumed with US-loathing and moonbat conspiracy theories.

I find it especially funny, but an indication of how much of a watse of time this all is, when people who always respond to every event with the knee-jerk, well rehearsed, Democrat talking points engage in the “toe the line” nonsense with those who differ with them…

X wife or husband theory...

You get married and everything is supposed to be wonderful. Well 2, 5, 10 or 20 years later you hate one another. You wish it never happened and your only goal is to destroy the other party.

Sounds a lot like many of our relationships with Bin Laden, Saddam, Afganistan and others. I always look at history this way when I hear people say we supported this or that leader.

Find myself supporting Bush on 90% of positions. For sure I like his "with or against" & "hunt down till the end of earth" mindset. Also he does not move from a stated position. Something that every military member can respect.

As for the opposition (Dean, Gore, Boxer, Kerry, Reid, Carter, Kennedy, Moveon.org and others) they do nothing move then smear, obstruct and attack. To this day many of these left minded liberals say nothing more then Social Security is okay, be sensative to terrorists, US troops torture and tax the wealthy making over 100k.

Who in their right mind would want these people in power? Please tell me one position as a party they support?

CS - Savage is so funny and good.

Mike - Wish I took my loan money and invested.

Mike,

You're right that didn't come across properly.  I absolutely am the same on that but I also believe that my comments there are pretty much identical to here.  What I was denying however is the just out of law school or what ever law school comment you had; that was actually somebody else by the IRR Soldier screen name if I recall.

Also, the correspondence piece, my point is you didn't attend so all the comments about leading to residency was not applicable to you because you were forced out during the downsizing due to REMF performance. 

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You're right that didn't come across properly.  I absolutely am the same on that but I also believe that my comments there are pretty much identical to here. 

[/quote]

Yeah, all the open talk here about what Democrats should do next to advance their righteous agenda against Chimpy McBush*tler and all. No, wait, here you're a Republican and a disgusted conservative, there (on the forum of that wack-job leftist website) you're a rabid Democrat partisan.

Yeah, "pretty much identical"....

[quote=csmelnix]What I was denying however is the just out of law school or what ever law school comment you had; that was actually somebody else by the IRR Soldier screen name if I recall. [/quote]

I don't know where the IRR soldier screen name comes in, but there's a guy with the same screen name elsewhere calling himself a "law school newbie" and asking about law firms in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Atlanta. If that's not you, fine.

[quote=csmelnix]Also, the correspondence piece, my point is you didn't attend so all the comments about leading to residency was not applicable to you because you were forced out during the downsizing due to REMF performance.  [/quote]

As usual, wrong on both counts.

1) CGSC correspondence didn't "lead to residency", there was a resident component to it. What competition of it allowed me to do was compete for a rare slot to a sister service senior staff college.

 2) I was not "forced out" and my performance was anything but "REMF". (btw, that's a surprising misuse of the term "REMF", Rear Echelon Mother F$%^&* I would expect someone who actually was an officer would know better).

I commanded early, I was selected to attend another branch’s OAC, I was sent to grad school on the Army’s dime, I was selected to an assignment with the Sate Department and from there attached to a ally’s military. I was the top block guy, the one way above you on that pyramid on the little box at the bottom of your OER. Now, I might not have been Audie Murphy, but my service record, since you forced me to detail it, stacks up well to yours (which remains as much in defilade as your CRD), pal.

Now, you can have the last, desperate and wildly inaccurate word, as usual.

MB,

You implied I was in law school in your first comment about this, I am not in law school but will tell you I am considering it to pursue some estate planning and tax work.  Kind of relates to what I do:

[quote=csmelnix]

  He preaches about the need to data mine on all citizens and "suspected" terrorists, the need we had to remove Saddam so that the mushroom cloud doesn't hit our soil and he's determined to see these ports handed over to a country who's ties to terror are suspect at best, a country that doesn't recognize Israel, that believes the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan....Uh!!!!!!!!!!  Are we or aren't we fighting a war on terror?  Line up locksteppers, another example of hypocritical ideology at play!

[/quote]

for the love of god, do you even know anything about the UAE much less Dubai which isn't even a country) aside from what you hear on FOX?

just read the rest of your posts. apparently you don't.

read up on Dubai's economy and how it was built, the role they played during the gulf war and today and come up with a better argument as to why they shouldn't be overlooking our ports because "TWO of the guys were from UAE"

Your statements are baseless and nothing but a bunch of profiling racist BS.

Hey CS is slowing moving to the right side. Just the libs and media can lead us all astray.

anabuhabkuss:

My foundation for the argument isn't 2 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE.  My point is simple, this country is suspect at best when it comes to a fight on terror.  Their support in the first Gulf War and how they built their economy has no bearing on the argument.  Simply, as a nation they have facilitated terrorist funding and direct ties with terror groups.  In many respects, their history in this regard is fairly close to what Syria has done.  One could argue that Syria who has also "closed" funding loopholes, handed bathists and Al Qada terrorists over to the US and Iraq, etc. has changed similarly to what the UAE has too.  The UAE has some internal issues still in terms of closing funding to terror groups.  At the end of the day, the main issue I have whether it's the UAE or any other Arab nation that has historical ties to terror running the port operations is their access to security operations there.  It doesn't take national level support of terror to infiltrate and blow the security measures.  It takes a single person with bad intentions that may have some ties to inside people that can also help facilitate getting that person into the port and do some damage.  I agree that nothing prevents a British owned company, Chinese owned company or maybe even a US owned company from having this happen.  But I find it difficult for anybody to reasonably argue that the means to do it are the same between a British, US, Chinese owned firm v an Arab owned.  Call me racists if you will, but I don't believe political correctness has room here for our security at home. 

If the CIA, FBI, Congress, Executive and HLS can all agree that they have security in place to overcome that issue, hey, have fun knock out the deal... but that has yet to occur and to blindly move forward until this is done is flat out stupid.  Don't preach to me we fight over there so we don't have to here when this process is glossed over by our President.

7God,

Come on brother I am already there; there's really not a lot of "left" in me or never has been.  I just like to think if you disagree with somebody on the right, doesn't make you a person on the left, right?