Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

the ports...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7163		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  soce,the elemental wizard [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  the ports...
good or bad? do we care? are we angry / happy? worried about security or racist?
Author:  Acekirby [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I heard about this. (Sadly, the first place I heard it from was The Daily Show) I'm worried. Just the thought of this makes me shiver.

Oh, and I don't buy that Bush didn't know about this until he saw it on the news.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
For those looking for a little background, start here.

Me, I'm just sick of the secrets. It seems like every single article I read about the Bush administration lately mentions some new thing that they've kept secret from the taxpayers and even our elected representatives in the name of "national security." It's not necessary and it's not making us more safe.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
You know, I don't know how I feel, truthfully. I was a little shocked that some of our ports were controlled by foreign companies anyway (the ports in question are currently controlled by a British company). It would seem to me that, in the interest of National Security, you'd wanna keep that stuff closer to home.

From what I've heard, the company that currently controls those ports is selling off their control because TSA wants some security improvements made that they don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for. This company from the UAE wants to make those improvements.

When the control changes hands, the change is supposed to be pretty much transparent. The same union workers are gonna work the ports, and the same people are going to be in charge of security. As I've heard, the only thing different is going to be who gets the money from the ports and who signs the workers' paychecks.

Granted, a middle eastern company controlling the ports does seem a little unsettling at first, but a lot of that comes from the fact that a non-American company would be controlling something so vital to our economy and national security.

What bothers me is how this is coming under so much scrutiny, not because a foreign national is going to be controlling our ports (which, should be the real issue, although Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC seem to miss that), but what country that person is from... Seems a little racist to me.
Author:  seamusz [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is not/was not ever a secret. There has been public info detailing the transaction from day one. Personally, I like the idea. I think that to get an Arab nation involved in the US in a way other than oil is a good thing. I think this will continue to help tear down the mistrust that exists on both sides.

EDIT: SR, I aggree with your last paragraph very much.
Author:  Stu [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
The terrorism "problem" doesn't bother me so much as the "cronyism" (if that is a real word...) that is going on here. It's all about your legacy, and Bush and his buddies are making sure that their's continues on long after they are out of office.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
seamusz wrote:
This is not/was not ever a secret.


ABC News wrote:
Under secret conditions of the agreement with the administration, the company promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of the $6.8 billion deal, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.


(Emphasis mine.)
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
seamusz wrote:
This is not/was not ever a secret. There has been public info detailing the transaction from day one. Personally, I like the idea. I think that to get an Arab nation involved in the US in a way other than oil is a good thing. I think this will continue to help tear down the mistrust that exists on both sides.

EDIT: SR, I aggree with your last paragraph very much.


Which part? The whole "foreign nationals shouldn't control our ports" part? or the "if you have no problem with one group of nationals controlling our ports, you shouldn't have a problem with another group" part?

Personally, I don't like the idea of our ports being privately owned. I know this goes against my whole "capitalism good" view, but, sometimes, like this, where security is an issue, maybe the government would do a better job than the private sector.
Author:  Exhibit A [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
The problem with the UAE controlling ports, as opposed to Britain, is first of all, GB is a trusted ally. The UAE is not. Plus, there is the matter of possible ties between the UAE and Al Qaeda.
Author:  seamusz [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
seamusz wrote:
This is not/was not ever a secret.


ABC News wrote:
Under secret conditions of the agreement with the administration, the company promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of the $6.8 billion deal, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.


(Emphasis mine.)


I have heard multiple reports, including an interview with Sen. Bob Bennet from my state, that the sale of the ports to this State owned company of the UAE have been published from day one... having said that I haven't read this anywhere. Personally, I would like to know what ABC consideres "secret"... I would imagine that it means "we overlooked this and just got on the bandwagon"... but thats my own bias coming through.
Strong Rad wrote:
Which part? The whole "foreign nationals shouldn't control our ports" part? or the "if you have no problem with one group of nationals controlling our ports, you shouldn't have a problem with another group" part?

Personally, I don't like the idea of our ports being privately owned. I know this goes against my whole "capitalism good" view, but, sometimes, like this, where security is an issue, maybe the government would do a better job than the private sector.


I agree that it seems very racist to me to have a cow over a nation taking over our ports just because they are Arabs. In relation to you last comment above, it is important to note that the UAE will not be incharge of Customs or security at the ports, just the buisness aspects of the ports.

Exhibit A wrote:
The problem with the UAE controlling ports, as opposed to Britain, is first of all, GB is a trusted ally. The UAE is not. Plus, there is the matter of possible ties between the UAE and Al Qaeda.


Oh... this is why the UAE has turned over Al Qaeda suspects to us, and also given us access to their port for our ships? The UAE is one of our most valuable allies in the middle east. They have been good to our country in spite of critisism from their neighbors. To deny them this deal just because they are Arabs would be a slap in the face imo.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the ports...
soce,the elemental wizard wrote:
good or bad? do we care? are we angry / happy? worried about security or racist?


I was talking about this with my Dad yesterday and I think I came up with a good point:

What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?

Yes, it seems like something out of a Tom Clancy novel but with all the crazy crap going on inside America now-a-days it doesn't seem like it should be put out of the list of motives for the White House to allow this sort of thing.
Author:  Jitka [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?


I highly, highly doubt this is true. One, Bush may be a horrible, repressive President, but he's not evil. At least, I don't think so.

Two, it would backfire. Republicans have painted themselves as being strong on homeland security. If another spectacular terrorist attack were to kill thousands of Americans, no one would ever trust Bush or possibly any other Republican again.

Personally, I think America should be controlling America's ports, not the UAE or Great Britain. But that's just me.
Author:  Rogue Leader [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:57 am ]
Post subject: 
While I agree that the ports should be controlled by American companies, handing it over to the UAE is no problem. The UAE has proven to be our ally, from helping in the War on Terror and donating to Katrina relief funds. I think that America is being a bit paranoid, and is sending a bad message.
Author:  Mikes! [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the ports...
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?
Who says he didn't already?
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Rogue Leader wrote:
While I agree that the ports should be controlled by American companies, handing it over to the UAE is no problem. The UAE has proven to be our ally, from helping in the War on Terror and donating to Katrina relief funds. I think that America is being a bit paranoid, and is sending a bad message.


I can't help but wonder what kind of spin this would have gotten had Hillary Clinton decided to to it instead of Dubya... I imagine republicans would be against it, and they would be painted as racists by those who support the plan...

Maybe.

Hey, I thought I'd join in on the paranoid conspiracy theory..
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the ports...
Mikes! wrote:
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?
Who says he didn't already?


No president is that vile. Not even Clinton. That's a conspiracy theory if you ask me, in the same vein as the FDR Pearl Harbor theory, which is rediculous because FDR wanted to keep the US out of WWII.
Author:  Mikes! [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: the ports...
sb_enail.com wrote:
Mikes! wrote:
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?
Who says he didn't already?


No president is that vile. Not even Clinton. That's a conspiracy theory if you ask me, in the same vein as the FDR Pearl Harbor theory, which is rediculous because FDR wanted to keep the US out of WWII.
I dunno man. I mean, there's always page fifty-one in the PNAC's report Rebuilding America's Defenses "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Read it for yourself. How's that for creepy?

(Page 87 also has a pretty cool quote, "We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself." Seems like they've been planning this all along...)

I don't care how much flak this lands me, but it's a vehement belief of mine: The powers-that-be either orchestrated or allowed the attacks of 9/11 to occur in order to justify wars that were planned long before the attacks themselves. These wars are instrumental in an attempt to ensure American hegemony over the world in the face of China's rise, not just to secure a Middle Eastern petroleum market.
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:45 am ]
Post subject: 
China will become a big factor in the future. If each Chinese person consumed at the same level as each American, there wouldn't be resources to suport it. My current World Civ instructor predicted that the next great war would be fought in central Asia, over the vast natural resources that exist there, particularly oil. China's oil consumption is growing dramatically, and I think, sometime this century, we will see World War III. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way things are heading. We need to be prepared.

As for the PNAC, yes, it does sound kinda creepy in light of 9/11, but I'm not convinced that any American would conspire with terrorists to cause those acts.

And furthermore: piemonade (it's my generation's toastpaint).

Anywho, on the ports thing, we've always been allies with the UAE, and calling off the deal 'cause some of the 9/11 highjackers came from there and funds were transferred through UAE banks is the equivalent of similar descrimination against Germany 'cause of Hitler and the Nazis.
Author:  Mikes! [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:02 am ]
Post subject: 
sb_enail.com wrote:
We need to be prepared.
For what? A war defending gluttony? Americans can't keep a self-sustaining lifestyle either.
Author:  topofsm [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
I just saw it in the newspaper. I think that if Dubya dosen't see a threat, there isn't one. You have to be intelligent to be the president.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
topofsm wrote:
I think that if Dubya dosen't see a threat, there isn't one.


Oh, yeah, that principle has really worked great for us in the past. :rolleyes:
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh, it is a continual source of humor to me that a man so hated and badly thought of managed to not only be elected President of the United States, but RE-ELECTED! Eight years of rule by a man considered a liar, crook, buffoon, and power-hungry monster by MILLLIONS. And this is a democratic country.

Roffle!

Back on topic:

I read that there is no US company that is even capable of running the ports. While it makes me uneasy to allow foreign companies to be involved in something like this, it appears we don't have a choice.
Author:  Acekirby [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
sb_enail.com wrote:
Mikes! wrote:
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
What if Bush wanted to open America for another attack just so he could say "I told you so"?
Who says he didn't already?

No president is that vile. Not even Clinton.

I resent that. Yes, Clinton had his problems, but he worked the US out of it's debt. And what did Bush do? Throw us right back in.

topofsm wrote:
I think that if Dubya dosen't see a threat, there isn't one.

Oh yeah, he totally saw 9/11 coming. :rolleyes:
Author:  seamusz [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Acekirby wrote:
I resent that. Yes, Clinton had his problems, but he worked the US out of it's debt. And what did Bush do? Throw us right back in.


Out of Debt? :rolleyes: Do you mean balance the budget? I suppose you think that Bush should have opened up some sort of lemonade stand to pay for the post 9/11 spending. I agree that spending is out of this world and needs to be changed, but if it wasn't for the huge spending by the administration, we would most likely still be deeply in recession.

Acekirby wrote:
Oh yeah, he totally saw 9/11 coming. :rolleyes:


How long was Bush in office when 9/11 happened? And how many years was Clinton in charge leading up to and right before one of the worst attacks on US soil?

But who likes the facts when you can just blame everything on Bush?
Author:  Mikes! [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Look man, I'm only blaming Bush 'cos he's the one making the speeches. I'm not an idiot; I know that Clinton is just as much of a warmonger.
Author:  seamusz [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mikes! wrote:
Look man, I'm only blaming Bush 'cos he's the one making the speeches. I'm not an idiot; I know that Clinton is just as much of a warmonger.


Was I quoting you?

IMO neither Clinton nor Bush are warmongers. People just want someone to blame. But who is more guilty, those who are doing things, or those of us who sit back and do nothing?
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:14 am ]
Post subject: 
seamusz wrote:
How long was Bush in office when 9/11 happened? And how many years was Clinton in charge leading up to and right before one of the worst attacks on US soil?

But who likes the facts when you can just blame everything on Bush?


Thank you! Somebody asks the important questions! Can I give you a trophy or something?
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Wow... I think this calls for a heapin' bucket of TOASTPAINT!

Back to the matter at hand, outsourcing is almost never good, especially not with something like ports. I think the government needs to step in and put a stop to this...
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Santa Zeno wrote:
Wow... I think this calls for a heapin' bucket of TOASTPAINT!

Back to the matter at hand, outsourcing is almost never good, especially not with something like ports. I think the government needs to step in and put a stop to this...

I usually don't have a problem with outsourcing, but this is something that really bothers me. Granted, the only difference between a US comapny owning a port and a foreign company is whose name is on the union dock worker's paycheck. It's not as big a security breech as some might think.

Almost no port in America is owned by an American company. That frightens me, until I think about the thing I just said. The government and the unions are still in charge of security, so, I suspect, if we hadn't been told some ports were changing hands, we woulda never noticed.

I'm nervous about this deal, though. Anything George Bush and Jimmy Carter agree on can't be good...
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:11 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
I'm nervous about this deal, though. Anything George Bush and Jimmy Carter agree on can't be good...


You have a good point. But the US is still in charge of port security. I think we just need to adopt stricter screening processes, and everything will be perfectly fine, right?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/