OutSourcing Port Security [Archive]

N2ACX

02-19-2006, 11:55 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I can't believe Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is pushing for this nonsense. Who are these guys working for, our enemies? This guy has to be relieved from this position as fast as possible.

I wrote all my congress people and senators already, and am calling them tommorrow also, monday morning. I think this administration is totally out of control after seeing this stupid idea of having the arabs and an arab company in the middle east handle seaport security in the United States of America.

This is one of the most insane things I have seen this government even consider, did someone already take over the United States of America and didn't tell us? It seems, in my opinion, we have what I concider treasonous people working in high places in Washington.

This to me,maybe a little overboard but, analogous to having the SS and Brownshirts in Hitler's War machine in charge of the US army's supplies and troop movements in europe in WWII. Or handing over troop security to german businesses during the war. Are these people who are pushing for this nuts or what?

Everyone has to write and call their respective congress people and senator's.

Thats my 2¢ 73 Gary N2ACX

w5klb

02-19-2006, 11:58 PM

Do either of you have ANY idea who actually RUNS these ports? It's not the port operator, try the US Coast Guard and The Department of Homeland Security.

Wake us up when you all want to talk about something really important. Yawn!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

N9XR

02-20-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote[/b] ]...try the US Coast Guard and The Department of Homeland Security.

So KLB is saying that we are at peace, because the USCG is under the control of DHS during peacetime, and under the USN during wartime. What is it? Peace or war? Are you right or wrong?

Quote[/b] ]Not defending Bush, I just don't see how a decision to contract part of a port security operation ties into the President of the United States.

There is a massive amount of defense for Dubya on this forum. Everytime someone complains about his performance, it's the same response. "HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING. NOTHING HE DOES SAYS OR IMPLIES." If we complain about decisions he makes in defense, it's not his responsibility, although he nominated the people who make those decisions.

We are not allowed to criticize him for anything on here because it is not fair to criticize the mentally retarded like this.

Quote[/b] ]Common folks, if you must point fingers at least you could get a little better subject matter.

What is this guy really responsibile for? I would like to see something that Dubya has accomplished that would make me proud. I do not believe that this is asking too much. NeoCons on here would never make this request of the left wing.

wb7dmx

02-20-2006, 12:43 AM

like out border security ?
wait, thats just another joke, sorry.

K6BBC

02-20-2006, 12:44 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 19 2006,16:45)]Have any of you worked over seas in the Armed Forces or in the private sector? #Or is this just another great opportunity to point fingers.

Not defending Bush, I just don't see how a decision to contract part of a port security operation ties into the President of the United States. #Decisions like this are made at a much lower level.

Common folks, if you must point fingers at least you could get a little better subject matter.
Are you joking?

I guess it would be okay if your maid hired the fox to guard the chickens too.

Ever hear the expression,” the buck stops here?” It all well and fine for Bush to beat his chest about keeping America safe as long as he is ignorant of everything around him.

Just another embarrassment for an incompetent administration. Know how I know that’s true? Watch. After a few days of stubbornly defending the decision, they will change course and make it look like it was their idea.

bbc

WA5KRP

02-20-2006, 01:07 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,17:44)]I’ve noticed the administration supporters are pretty quite these days.

bbc
Are pretty quite what?

I'm a Bush supporter but this is fundamentally bone-headed wrong, if for no other reason than the integrity of port security. With Mideast tensions so high, why would we give a potential foreign enemy an opportunity to sabotage our major eastern and Gulf ports and throw our economy into chaos?

BAD IDEA.

WA5KRP
Texas

K6BBC

02-20-2006, 01:12 AM

Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Feb. 19 2006,18:07)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,17:44)]I’ve noticed the administration supporters are pretty quite these days.

bbc
Are pretty quite what?

I'm a Bush supporter but this is fundamentally bone-headed wrong, if for no other reason than the integrity of port security. #With Mideast tensions so high, why would we give a potential foreign enemy an opportunity to sabotage our major eastern and Gulf ports and throw our economy into chaos?

BAD IDEA.

WA5KRP
Texas
Why, because they don't care about us Danny. Look at our southern border.

bbc

W5JO

02-20-2006, 01:36 AM

I find it amazing that so many with so little knowledge of the subject is willing to be critical so much.

Is there any chance some of you were at the table making the decision? Do any of you know more than I do? And by the way, someone said the winner of the contract is our enemy. Since when? Just because it is a muslim country? I think Canada has done less for us than the country that won the contract.

So the inference is Canada is our enemy? Not quite, the government up there doesn't want to align with our present direction. Maybe they know something we don't!

It just sound like the election. 48% voted for Kerry and 52% voted for Bush. He is our president and has much more infromation than any of us.

When you know the whole story then you can make critical remarks that are more accurate. I don't understand why there isn't a new board created here just for bashing our president.

n0ov

02-20-2006, 01:59 AM

I don't care who you are, that's funny. Am I right -- you folks never served in the military overseas? If you did and were associated with any security work you would see that is normal, and sometimes desirable to higher folks familiar with local customs and language.

Heck -- I understand the outrage and concern over the potential risk associated with the security staff selected, just don't see how it's linked to the President. That's like saying Clinton is responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

Hey, at least they are hiring some type of security -- what about the US boarders? Seems to me the lack of security down at the southwest is more to worry about -- especially to our good friends in Kalifornia.

To be perfectly honest, what bothers me about the Bush Bashing is not the target but is the potential to set the tone of the next election. Bush was re-elected because many folks were blinded by hate and didn't recognize how bad Kerry was. The folks voting for Kerry were not voting for him because he was a better man, they were voting against Bush. Just think what would have happened if the Democrats (e.g. Hollywood and the media) would have selected someone with less of a liberal voting record.

Oh well, at least these posts are humerous. Especially when I think how serious some folks are about this topic.

So, like a very wise Marine friend of mine stated in one of the elections, "I'll fight for him, I'll die for him if, I just won't vote for him."

Cheers All

N9XR

02-20-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote[/b] ]Is there any chance some of you were at the table making the decision? Do any of you know more than I do? And by the way, someone said the winner of the contract is our enemy. Since when? Just because it is a muslim country? I think Canada has done less for us than the country that won the contract.

Fair enough.
One. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Two. bin Laden is a Saudi national.
Three. We are outsourcing our national security to Saudi Arabia.

That is probably a real good idea, but I am missing something somewhere. What am I missing?

n8yx

02-20-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 19 2006,19:02)]That is probably a real good idea, but I am missing something somewhere. What am I missing?
Follow the money...who stands to benefit from this - and how?

KG4CGC

02-20-2006, 02:50 AM

This is an excellent topic and yes, I think it's bone headed but it IS all politics and this is a very grey area considering that U.A.I. is one of our best allies in the Mid East. Unlike the Saudi's, they are not controlled by wacko fundementalists or even moderate (so to speak) Muslims. The U.A.I. is in the business of doing business and religion (on their part) has nothing to do with how they conduct themselves.Could they be overrun by Wahabis? Let's hope not but keep in mind that they bought this business from a British firm that DID sell to the highest bidder and the sale was not blocked by our government.
# While I am concerned by this bit of news, it would do us all a service to ourselves if we studied who the U.A.I. really is. They are not a threat. Let's just keep a watchful eye on who starts trying to get into lower levels of office over there. It may be trap for certain would be terror plotters.
# Think of them (for now) as that friend you have that lives in that neighborhood you try to avoid. Any of this make any sense?

w5klb

02-20-2006, 02:52 AM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 19 2006,17:43)]So KLB is saying that we are at peace, because the USCG is under the control of DHS during peacetime, and under the USN during wartime. #What is it? #Peace or war? #Are you right or wrong?

The only time that the US Coast Guard falls under the auspices of the Chief of Naval Operations, is when the President, their Commander in Chief, so directs. This could be at peacetime as well. The President makes that decision, not us.

Here's a link: US Coast Guard (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/index.htm) Click on "Missions".

As a US Navy Veteran of many years, I can conclude, without a doubt, that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about in this area.

Recommendation: Talk about something you have expericance with like Amateur Radio. Leave the military issues to the men and women on active duty, our leaders, and military veterans.

BTW, in case you missed it, we have been at war since 9/11. This is the reason it's called "The War on Terror" (Get it?). #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

K6BBC

02-20-2006, 03:06 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 19 2006,18:59)]Bush was re-elected because many folks were blinded by hate and didn't recognize how bad Kerry was. #
Okay, anybody understand this or is PEE just messing with us?

bbc

WA5KRP

02-20-2006, 03:25 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,21:06)]Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 19 2006,18:59)]Bush was re-elected because many folks were blinded by hate and didn't recognize how bad Kerry was. #
Okay, anybody understand this or is PEE just messing with us?

bbc
BBC,

You and IkonBoard have strange effects on people. #It's very entertaining to watch. #http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/sarge/CrossEye_anim.gif

WA5KRP
Texas

K0RGR

02-20-2006, 03:35 AM

The question isn't just that they're turning over port security to a Middle eastern firm, it's the whole idea that they're outsourcing it at all. We can't afford to pay an American firm to provide security.

My biggest fear in regard to terrorists is that one of them, probably working for an enemy government, would merely put a nuke in a container on board a ship. Once past the port, it could be anywhere in America in a day or two. Would America be terrified if Omaha was suddenly vaporized? Then. all they'd have to do is claim that there are more bombs, and the U.S. would surrender without firing a shot - we couldn't risk shooting back if there wasn't a clear target, and we couldn't risk ignoring the threat.

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 04:36 AM

Outraged?

So all of a sudden you're PO'd because an international #business deal was completed - in the clear - apparently Chertoff believes that all of the i's are dotted and the t's crossed but because GWB is at the helm you knee jerks are acting like a bunch of coon dogs after crippled prey. #

This deal wasn't commited in secrecy, and it was checked out before approval was given by the US gov't. #

You want sleeze, double dealings, underhandedness, treason, compromise of military secrets, failure of national security at the highest levels of government, etc.? #

Then Google this: #Carter +Clinton +China +Panama Canal.

If you have a legitimate bitch about GWB I don't have a problem with it, he has a position pretty far down on my snit list too. # But come on fellows, use some common sense here, it seems that all an article has to have is a few key words and some of you get started on your little hissy fits. #

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when you jump onto every little incident that comes along with which you can tag to GWB after awhile you become boring and unheard so that when you do have something to report nobody listens. #Kind of like calling Wolf too many times. #

Pick your battles carefully, this isn't one of them.

N6WK

02-20-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 20 2006,03:52)]BTW, in case you missed it, we have been at war since 9/11. This is the reason it's called "The War on Terror" (Get it?). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hmm,
since Congress is the ONLY power that can Declare war, I must have missed it when the CONGRESS Declared war.
Please enlighten me, Just when Did Congress declare war on September 11th ??
Just because bonehead Bush calls it a war, dos Not mean Congress Declared WAR !
Besides, Shoudn't Bush be looking for those that caused the September 11th disaster instead of beating his chest and getting Americans killed in Iraq? It was NOT Iraq that attacked the World Trade towers.

A side Note, Why does everyone like to use the term 9/11 ?
Why can't they just say ( or type) September 11th??

N6WK

02-20-2006, 04:45 AM

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ Feb. 20 2006,05:36)]If you have a legitimate bitch about GWB I don't have a problem with it, he has a position pretty far down on my snit list too. But come on fellows, use some common sense here, it seems that all an article has to have is a few key words and some of you get started on your little hissy fits.
MW,
You are Right. We should just complain and Bush being an Idiot because........ well, because he Is a Dope !!

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 19 2006,23:45)]Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ Feb. 20 2006,05:36)]If you have a legitimate bitch about GWB I don't have a problem with it, he has a position pretty far down on my snit list too. # But come on fellows, use some common sense here, it seems that all an article has to have is a few key words and some of you get started on your little hissy fits.
MW,
#You are Right. We should just complain and Bush being an Idiot because........ well, because he Is a Dope !!

Nice grade school come back. #I hope you're still using the blunt scissors. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote[/b] ]Just because bonehead Bush calls it a war,

Then there's the other 'bonehead' that called it a war in so many words.

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . .

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen.

"Every American man is an enemy to us."

It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities."

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Gee I wonder who that was. #here's a hint, his initials are OBL.

kg4kww

02-20-2006, 05:20 AM

Well I hope these people win in court:

Suit seeks to block Arab firm's takeover of U.S. port operations

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

Full Story Click Here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/port.security.ap/index.html)

w5klb

02-20-2006, 05:52 AM

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 19 2006,21:41)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 20 2006,03:52)]BTW, in case you missed it, we have been at war since 9/11. This is the reason it's called "The War on Terror" (Get it?). #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hmm,
# #since Congress is the ONLY power that can Declare war, I must have missed it when the CONGRESS Declared war.
Please enlighten me, #Just when Did Congress declare war on September 11th ??
Just because bonehead Bush calls it a war, dos Not mean Congress Declared WAR !
Besides, Shoudn't Bush be looking for those that caused the September 11th disaster instead of beating his chest and getting Americans killed in Iraq? It was NOT Iraq that attacked the World Trade towers.

A side Note, Why does everyone like to use the term 9/11 ?
Why can't they just say ( or type) September 11th??
On September Eighteeth, Twothousand One (better?), the United States Congress authorized The President of the United States to:

"... use all necessary and appropiate force against those nations, organizations or persons he detemines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terroist attacks that incurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organiztions, or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."- US Code Title 50, 1541.

So yeah, it's a war.

And the only difference between using "9/11" or September 11, 2001, is one is shorter and saves typing. Most people know what is meant by using "9/11". Big frigg'n deal, now go have some cheese with your whine.

kd5rpo

02-20-2006, 06:06 AM

klb- techically you are wrong. I don't want to get involved in the politics here, but Vietnam and Korea were not wars either.

w5klb

02-20-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote[/b] (kd5rpo @ Feb. 19 2006,23:06)]klb- techically you are wrong. #I don't want to get involved in the politics here, but Vietnam and Korea were not wars either.
But we aren't talking about Vietnam or Korea. And if I'm wrong than you need to start a letter writing campain and inform every member of the US Congress, and Senate that they are wrong also. They passed this law! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kd5rpo

02-20-2006, 06:36 AM

They approved an action. Sort of like the war on drugs. No declaration of war was passed. That is the difference and defined in the constitution. The president can declare a war for a period of 90 days. Congress must then vote on it if there is a true need.

K6BBC

02-20-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 19 2006,22:52)]"... use all necessary and appropiate force against those nations, organizations or persons he detemines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terroist attacks that incurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organiztions, or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."- US Code Title 50, 1541.

So yeah, it's a war.
YEAH!?

What does this have to do with IRAQ?

HUH...? Please explain.

bbc

k9kjm

02-20-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ Feb. 19 2006,21:36)]Outraged?

So all of a sudden you're PO'd because an international #business deal was completed - in the clear - apparently Chertoff believes that all of the i's are dotted and the t's crossed but because GWB is at the helm you knee jerks are acting like a bunch of coon dogs after crippled prey. #

This deal wasn't commited in secrecy, and it was checked out before approval was given by the US gov't. #

You want sleeze, double dealings, underhandedness, treason, compromise of military secrets, failure of national security at the highest levels of government, etc.? #

Then Google this: #Carter +Clinton +China +Panama Canal.

If you have a legitimate bitch about GWB I don't have a problem with it, he has a position pretty far down on my snit list too. # But come on fellows, use some common sense here, it seems that all an article has to have is a few key words and some of you get started on your little hissy fits. #

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when you jump onto every little incident that comes along with which you can tag to GWB after awhile you become boring and unheard so that when you do have something to report nobody listens. #Kind of like calling Wolf too many times. #

Pick your battles carefully, this isn't one of them.
Yeah, As already mentioned it all gets back to MONEY.

To figure out most anything, Just FOLLOW the MONEY!

MW got it about right:
You want sleeze, double dealings, underhandedness, treason, compromise of military secrets, failure of national security at the highest levels of government, etc.? #

Then Google this: #Carter +Clinton +China +Panama Canal.

If you have a legitimate bitch about GWB I don't have a problem with it, he has a position pretty far down on my snit list too. # But come on fellows, use some common sense here, it seems that all an article has to have is a few key words and some of you get started on your little hissy fits. #

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when you jump onto every little incident that comes along with which you can tag to GWB after awhile you become boring and unheard so that when you do have something to report nobody listens. #Kind of like calling Wolf too many times. #

Pick your battles carefully, this isn't one of them.

N5TJZ

02-20-2006, 12:19 PM

N5TJZ

02-20-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 19 2006,18:59)]I don't care who you are, that's funny. #Am I right -- you folks never served in the military overseas? #If you did and were associated with any security work you would see that is normal, and sometimes desirable to higher folks familiar with local customs and language. #

Heck -- I understand the outrage and concern over the potential risk associated with the security staff selected, just don't see how it's linked to the President. #That's like saying Clinton is responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

Hey, at least they are hiring some type of security -- what about the US boarders? #Seems to me the lack of security down at the southwest is more to worry about -- especially to our good friends in Kalifornia.

To be perfectly honest, what bothers me about the Bush Bashing is not the target but is the potential to set the tone of the next election. #Bush was re-elected because many folks were blinded by hate and didn't recognize how bad Kerry was. #The folks voting for Kerry were not voting for him because he was a better man, they were voting against Bush. #Just think what would have happened if the Democrats (e.g. Hollywood and the media) would have selected someone with less of a liberal voting record. #

Oh well, at least these posts are humerous. #Especially when I think how serious some folks are about this topic.

So, like a very wise Marine friend of mine stated in one of the elections, "I'll fight for him, I'll die for him if, I just won't vote for him."

Cheers #All
Aren't we hiring folks to provide security for US ports. So wouldn't we hire Americans as they would know the local customs and language.

BTW I did serve in the Military overseas, did you? The people I saw doing security were US Marines.

Why do you think that post about our National Security are humerous, and not a serious topic.

N9XR

02-20-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote[/b] ]YEAH!?

What does this have to do with IRAQ?

HUH...? Please explain.
See the topic on the cables getting burned in. Some people believe anything.

N9XR

02-20-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote[/b] ]Then Google this: Carter +Clinton +China +Panama Canal.

Then Google this "Miserable Failure" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"

Quote[/b] ]Kind of like calling Wolf too many times.
http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/images/gallery/special_reports/iraq/20050428/ira1625.5.jpg
We keep calling "wolf" because so few are listening. I am sure there are many more of these pictures you would love to see on the web KJM

Quote[/b] ]Pick your battles carefully, this isn't one of them.
Good quote for Bush.

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote[/b] ]A side Note, Why does everyone like to use the term 9/11 ?
Why can't they just say ( or type) September 11th??

9/11 = .81818181818181. . . . . . (Ate One forever)

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote[/b] ]Then Google this "Miserable Failure" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"
Oh how cute! #No doubt 9XR you've made that your home page.

Then you post a picture of flag drapped coffins - are you so damned shameless that you have to use an image of the remains of men that were better than you just to emphasize your petty little agendas? #

This topic was concerning Outsourcing Port Security - yet you and a few others like you always seem to be able to drag every topic down into your miasma of GWB hatred. #You could have intellectually discussed the implications of Port Security and GWB's involvement #without dragging all of your other dreary non-pertinent comments into the fray. #Stick to the topic at hand!!!!!

That is what I meant when I said earlier Quote[/b] ] when you jump onto every little incident that comes along with which you can tag to GWB after awhile you become boring and unheard so that when you do have something to report nobody listens. #

We just look at the call letters tag and scroll on past the same old same old.

Wolf! # Wolf!

N9XR

02-20-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote[/b] ]petty little agendas
I am sorry to see that you view the concern of American Soldiers as "Petty little agendas".

Quote[/b] ]We just look at the call letters tag and scroll on past the same old same old.
Enemies of the US hate my posts.

N0CTO

02-20-2006, 02:54 PM

Yes, it's a bad idea having any foreign company in charge of our port security. I was upset when I found out that a British company owned it right now. And I trust the Brits. I trust foreign Arabs and Persians as far as I could throw them. I think that's fair since they flew jets into our buildings.

I wonder who the Libs would give it to..Oh lets' see Saudi Arabia maybe? It would be Al Gore's way of making amends for the "horrible things" we've done to the Arabs. Or maybe they would give it to the Iranians. Along with some Nuclear Technology because it's their right to have it and who are we to stop them right?

The liberals are the wrong people to trust with the security of the United States. It was their failure to do anything all through the 90's when terrorists attacked us with impunity that brough 9/11 to our doorsteps. If we would have done something after Kobar Towers, or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or for God's sake the USS Cole maybe 9/11 would have never happened. Of course it was only Sailors that was killed on the Cole and we know who liberals feel about the military. They think we were practically asking for it by being over there.

N9XR

02-20-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote[/b] ]As a US Navy Veteran of many years, I can conclude, without a doubt, that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about in this area.

I am happy for your abundance of knowlege, but you need to contact the USCG about their websight and get it corrected. It says that during times of war (and you are now saying that we are at war) that the USCG falls under the command of the Navy. During times of peace, it is under the control of the DHS. I am just relaying what the USCG site says. Don't blame me. I don't know what is going on. I did not know congress declared war as you say. I missed that declaration of "War on Terror" by congress of which you speak.

Tell us more. I am interested. And get the USCG site to correct their command chain, since you know so much.

KW4MW

02-20-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote[/b] ]n9xr Posted on Feb. 20 2006,09:32

I am sorry to see that you view the concern of American Soldiers as "Petty little agendas".

OK 9XR - There you go again putting words to my post that weren't there. #

I said that YOU were shamelessly using pictures of the remains of men that were better than you just to emphasize your petty little agendas. #

9XR I spent 22 years in the US Navy - Yeah, you probably don't like that either - guys like you don't like the military but you're the first to use their dead as just another instrument to promote your insecure misinformed/uninformed #viewpoint of the world. #Those kids in those flag draped coffins were comrades in arms - something that you will never understand. #You don't have any respect for them or their families or you would #realize that posting that picture as a political comment is about as low as one can get. # If you were ever in the military, you were probably a REMF stationed at some secure base and your top priority was bitching about the chow. #I've been there chump, I've seen guys get hurt, maimed and killed. #I respected them for their dedication and honor, that is probably another concept that you find hard to understand. #

BTW if you don't know what REMF means then you probably were one. #

Quote[/b] ]Enemies of the US hate my posts.
That's quite the enigma - given the scope and content of your posts I would suspect that the opposite would be true.

KB9YCO

02-20-2006, 03:55 PM

Just another example of how this adminstration is NOT conservative in the actual definition of the word. Much the same as Clinton wasn't liberal when he signed NAFTA or any of the other wacky crap that he did. Or the Bush administration stance on illegal immigrants, or many of their not so conservative actions.
Time to get over these labels people, I know it's difficult since the media throws them around like they're accurate, but they're not accurate and they prosper a notion of easily definable, black and white issues and people which does a disservice to the complexities of both.
I can't imagine what this adminstration is thinking when they are the first to claim to be so hardcore about domestic security and so on and they sanction something like this. The hypocrisy of it all is truly mind-boggling. But then again these are the same people that were in the executive branch for a year and half before 9-11, and had plenty of warning, and were also in control of the house and senate for most of the Clinton era, and did nothing, and funded Al Qeada and Saddam during the Bush Sr. and Reagan era and gave them many of the weapons that they later had. But much easier to blame the fake liberals in the Democratic party then blame the fake conservatives in the Republican party.

w5klb

02-20-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 20 2006,08:11)]Quote[/b] ]As a US Navy Veteran of many years, I can conclude, without a doubt, that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about in this area.

I am happy for your abundance of knowlege, but you need to contact the USCG about their websight and get it corrected. #It says that during times of war (and you are now saying that we are at war) that the USCG falls under the command of the Navy. #During times of peace, it is under the control of the DHS. #I am just relaying what the USCG site says. #Don't blame me. #I don't know what is going on. #I did not know congress declared war as you say. #I missed that declaration of "War on Terror" by congress of which you speak.

Tell us more. #I am interested. #And get the USCG site to correct their command chain, since you know so much.

From USCG's website on National Security:

"Thoughout history the Coast Guard has enjoyed a unique relationship with the Navy. By statute, the Coast Guard is an armed force, operating in the joint arena at any time and functioning as a specialized service under the Navy in a time of war, or when directed by the President."

I guess President Bush doesn't feel the need to direct the Coast Guard to fall under the Command of Chief of Naval Operations. And I refuse to "second guess" our Commander in Chief in this area.

As for getting the USCG "to change their chain of command", only the people with enough "horsepower" to do that is The Commandant of The Coast Guard, Congress, and The President.

Like I have posted before, stick with subjects you know like Amateur Radio. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

N9XR

02-20-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote[/b] ]I spent 22 years in the US Navy
Good for you. I am proud of you. Now you are drawing entitlement funds from the national treasury. Spend that well.

Quote[/b] ]BTW if you don't know what REMF means then you probably were one. I know when you use profanities and otherwise unacceptable name calling on this forum. I am used to people like you and consider the source.

Quote[/b] ]...pictures of the remains of men that were better than you...
The key word being "were". No doubt that they were better than me. Unfortunately they are now wasted, and are incapable of protecting the nations ports and borders. That is the topic here. To read MW's posts, I thought I was the subject.

Quote[/b] ]your insecure misinformed/uninformed viewpoint of the world.
If you are well versed on this topic, please let me know with real facts where I am misinformed/uninformed.

N9XR

02-20-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote[/b] ]From USCG's website on National Security:

"Thoughout history the Coast Guard has enjoyed a unique relationship with the Navy. By statute, the Coast Guard is an armed force, operating in the joint arena at any time and functioning as a specialized service under the Navy in a time of war, or when directed by the President."

That is what you have not explained. #It does not give the president authority to put the USCG under the control of the DHS during time of war as you have implied. #It does give him the power to place the USCG under the control of the Navy during peacetime.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #

w5klb

02-20-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 20 2006,09:19)]Quote[/b] ]From USCG's website on National Security:

"Thoughout history the Coast Guard has enjoyed a unique relationship with the Navy. By statute, the Coast Guard is an armed force, operating in the joint arena at any time and functioning as a specialized service under the Navy in a time of war, or when directed by the President."

That is what you have not explained. #It does not give the president authority to put the USCG under the control of the DHS during time of war as you have implied. #It does give him the power to place the USCG under the control of the Navy during peacetime.
The President, sometime back, performed a major reorganization of his Cabnet. He moved the Coast Guard from the The Department of Transportation, to the Department of Homeland Security. Jeez, do I need to draw you a picture? Quit taking my posts out of context to suit you political agenda.

Futhermore, I don't feel any further explaination is needed. I feel sorry for you that you refuse to see that you're pushing a bad position.

I am in "lockstep" with Mike. Until you have served and experianced what guys like us have, you cannot offer any real intelligent, ADULT discourse in military matters.

BTW, you need to ask for a refund for that "Hooked on Phonics" course. I think you were robbed.

KD6NIG

02-20-2006, 05:09 PM

Wow, outsourcing port security. We didn't see that one coming. Hey, haven't we been outsourcing everything else it seems like for years? But now we get outraged because its for port security?

I think the reason the ports are doing this isn't political. Its simply economics. They probably put the contract out to bid, and guess who got the lowest bid?

Ok, yeah, I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them either, but honestly. I'm sure the shareholders of those ports would be mighty mad if they found out that the people in charge chose to pay more money just because of this.

I would think that port security companies would have to meet certian standards, and I'm sure the bid would outline this. Probably including the amount of insurance, standards for thier employees which I assume would probably include some kind of background check (and if not, only the PORT is to blame for that standard) and other performance requirements.

Any company that got the contract could easily hire or not properly check the people they are hiring. Just because the company is from outside the US doesn't mean they will hire from outside the US-and if they do, the port should set the standard, right?

I think you'll find a good portion of the 'security' companies nowadays have at a minimum some kind of foreign investment, if not controlled by foreign interests. Perhaps if we had stopped the outsourcing at computer technical support, we wouldn't be outsourcing our security now.....

But the reason they are probably doing it is probably common business sense, not because the President gave the ports all a phone call and told them to please go with this company. It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out-if they win, then I guess any company or entity that outsources can be sued for using companies outside of the US.

N9XR

02-20-2006, 06:37 PM

w5klb Quote[/b] ]BTW, you need to ask for a refund for that "Hooked on Phonics" course. I think you were robbed.
It is sad that I am this bad off and yet so far ahead of you.

So, in following the topic of the thread, I am assuming you are in favor of the Saudi bin Laden groups in control of our ports. This is what you are saying?

n0ov

02-20-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Feb. 18 2006,15:33)]With all the crap going on in the world, the Bush Admin wants to outsource US Port Security to an Arab Company from the UAE.

OutSourcing Port Security (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704051/)

Just who's greasing who's palms?
Congrads.

Finger pointing, attacks, hate, and sarcasm.

You have generated one of the best troll posts I've seen in quite a long time -- not that you intended it this way, but there we are.

It's nice to know the freedom of speech priviliages American Servicemen and woman have died to protect is being used so well.

You may proceed with.............................

What do you call this? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KD4LEI

02-20-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,10:44)]I’ve noticed the administration supporters are pretty quite these days.

bbc
I am certainly not backing the administration on this one bbc.

Quiet am I? You heard it from me here and now...

KD6NIG

02-20-2006, 07:07 PM

Ok, now that I have read the article, I'll refine my comments to the fact that I guess another company cannot buy a certian company if the US says so.

Now my question is: Is the current company meeting the contractual requirements for port security? If so, wouldn't the acquiring company be required to maintain the same standard?

Another question: Everyone is saying that the background checks won't be good enough. The people hired will be potential threats. Why isn't the port REQUIRING a higher standard? If port security is so vital (yes, I know it is!) then why isn't the port setting the standards required? It appears the acquiring company has stated they will maintain the status quo as required......

I wonder also how safe the current security provider is if they are the target of an acquisition. Are they being acquired because they are in fiscal crisis, or is the acquiring company just looking to make itself a larger company? I would think if they were going to acquire this company, they would realise said company has contracts to be honored.

Makes you wonder whats really required of these port security companies....I'd be questioning the port authorities first since they set the standards for the companies to bid on.....

ka5s

02-20-2006, 07:12 PM

Security? How about whole ports? (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-476.txt)?

The proposed expansion of COSCO's facilities at the Port of Long Beach has raised issues concerning smuggling of guns by Chinese defense-related companies, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intelligence collection, and access to U.S. and Panamanian ports. In response, senior Administration officials have written that COSCO's use of a terminal to be built on former Naval property would not adversely affect national security. ...

From the Washington Times: (http://users.rcn.com/virtual.nai/sot/wt1.htm)
Republicans and Democrats yesterday raised national-security concerns about Communist China establishing its first U.S. commercial beachhead on a prime piece of Pacific real estate amid a cluster of U.S. Navy bases and defense plants.

Cortland
KA5S

K6BBC

02-20-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote[/b] (KD4LEI @ Feb. 20 2006,12:00)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,10:44)]I’ve noticed the administration supporters are pretty quite these days.

bbc
I am certainly not backing the administration on this one bbc.

Quiet am I? #You heard it from me here and now...
Starting to see the light -- just a bit?

And I'm still waiting for my answer on what Iraq HAD to do with the so called "War on Terror."

bbc

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 12:58 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 19 2006,18:45)]Have any of you worked over seas in the Armed Forces or in the private sector? #Or is this just another great opportunity to point fingers.

Not defending Bush, I just don't see how a decision to contract part of a port security operation ties into the President of the United States. #Decisions like this are made at a much lower level.

Common folks, if you must point fingers at least you could get a little better subject matter.
wØpee, the proposal came from the White House and was approved by the White House, what don't you understand?

The Bush administation is refusing to release the specifics on the take over, figures they would keep it a secret, two of the hijackers who committed the 911 crime was from the UAE and it's been reported that some of the laundred money to finance the 911 attack was from the UAE...

Dear Americans, where is your outrage?

kxq

N6WK

02-21-2006, 01:12 AM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 20 2006,06:52)]On September Eighteeth, Twothousand One (better?), the United States Congress authorized The President of the United States to:

"... use all necessary and appropiate force against those nations, organizations or persons he detemines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terroist attacks that incurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organiztions, or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."- US Code Title 50, 1541.

So yeah, it's a war.

And the only difference between using "9/11" or September 11, 2001, is one is shorter and saves typing. Most people know what is meant by using "9/11". Big frigg'n deal, now go have some cheese with your whine.
Hmmm Pretty red lettering there Gary, But I still did NOT see the words "WE DECLARE WAR"

Did you forget to type that part, or did Congress NOT say that they declared war??

Yes I do enjoy some Cheese with my Wine !!
Thank You Very Much !

Gordon

KD4LEI

02-21-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 20 2006,06:24)]Quote[/b] (KD4LEI @ Feb. 20 2006,12:00)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 19 2006,10:44)]I’ve noticed the administration supporters are pretty quite these days.

bbc
I am certainly not backing the administration on this one bbc.

Quiet am I? #You heard it from me here and now...
Starting to see the light -- just a bit?

And I'm still waiting for my answer on what Iraq HAD to do with the so called "War on Terror."

bbc
I simply saw this for what it was and this is a bad move on the administrations part.

The WoT having anything to do with Iraq. #Hmmm... #Did you hear today or over the weekend about the recent recordings of Saddam.

Now these recordings of Saddam has certainly sparked my interest which have came out recently. #There is intel reporting Russian Spetznaz in plain clothes hauling material of great interest (WMD's?) out of the country into Syria and Lebanon days before we invaded back in 2003.

Shall be interesting to see how this pans out over the days and months come. #The recordings are certainly causing a stir in DC.

kg4kww

02-21-2006, 04:25 AM

I think that Bush and his buddies have dug themselves a hole they will not get out of this time. This is about Money and his buddies take of the action.

I sorry to say that I voted for this guy both times. I thought he was tough on terrorism and was for building a safe America. Now his buddy Chertoff wants to hand the keys to the ports to the arabs, the ones who are terrorists.

I think Chertoff needs to go and fast.

Lawmakers voice concerns about takeover by Dubai-based firm (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/index.html)

AC0H

02-21-2006, 01:26 PM

So......a foreign company (British) who has been running the ports for quite some time, with tacit approval from congress by the way, gets bought by another foreign company (U.A.E) and everybody gets their undies in a bundle. What are you people, racist?

There is no indication from anyone that any current port employee will be replaced if the deal goes through. The USCG and customs department set security policy at all ports, not the company running the port.

Seeing N9XR spout off in this thread has been fun.
He's the poster boy for the military hating, pinko, leaches in this country. These are the same people who whine and snivel about "their rights" but wouldn't lift a finger to defend those rights. Like I said, leaches.

KC2KFC

02-21-2006, 02:38 PM

Well here's an interesting twist.

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation)

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 21 2006,08:26)]So......a foreign company (British) who has been running the ports for quite some time, with tacit approval from congress by the way, gets bought by another foreign company (U.A.E) and everybody gets their undies in a bundle. What are you people, racist?

There is no indication from anyone that any current port employee will be replaced if the deal goes through. The USCG and customs department set security policy at all ports, not the company running the port.

Seeing N9XR spout off in this thread has been fun.
He's the poster boy for the military hating, pinko, leaches in this country. These are the same people who whine and snivel about "their rights" but wouldn't lift a finger to defend those rights. Like I said, leaches.
No, not for quite sometime,(British) since 2000 ,hmm 6 years!

Fact: two of the 911 hijackers were from UAE, and it's been reported that money was laundred thru the UAE that financed the 911 attackers.

Also this sort of deal usually takes a few months for security clearence,this outfit had 23 days for security clearence, hmmm? that was fast..

"Racist" nothing racist about it IMO, only Arabs, you know the ones who wear towels on their heads, blow up things,chop off heads, murder want to kill you because you are an American and ect...

"Seeing N9XR spout off in this thread has been fun.
He's the poster boy for the military hating, pinko, leaches in this country."

Pretty strong words comming from someone who would allow the enemy in the front door and personal attacks on n9xr to top it off...

Dood, get a grip, you have went to far and if you lean any more to the right you will fall over...

kxq

W0UZR

02-21-2006, 02:53 PM

I decided some time ago that I wouldn't get into a politics thread anymore, but this one I can't resist.....

I think there is something going on in high places that are being kept secret. And if we knew EVERYthing that we aren't suppose to know, we already would be in a revolution.

N9XR

02-21-2006, 03:19 PM

Just for AC0H (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/)

kg4kww

02-21-2006, 03:23 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is facing political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.

The Bush administration has said the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html)

n8yx

02-21-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Feb. 21 2006,07:53)]I think there is something going on in high places that are being kept secret. And if we knew EVERYthing that we aren't suppose to know, we already would be in a revolution.
Follow the money.

A capitalistic society does not base its course of action on altruism...

K6BBC

02-21-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 21 2006,06:26)]So......a foreign company (British) who has been running the ports for quite some time, with tacit approval from congress by the way, gets bought by another foreign company (U.A.E) and everybody gets their undies in a bundle. What are you people, racist?

There is no indication from anyone that any current port employee will be replaced if the deal goes through. The USCG and customs department set security policy at all ports, not the company running the port.

Seeing N9XR spout off in this thread has been fun.
He's the poster boy for the military hating, pinko, leaches in this country. These are the same people who whine and snivel about "their rights" but wouldn't lift a finger to defend those rights. Like I said, leaches.
I think you are on the wrong side of this one. Bush and co. are being supremely pummeled by this decision. And, if you can't see thee difference between a British company running our ports and one from the Arab world, well, I feel sorry for you.

Then again, I think your post must have been made in jest. Either that or you are a shill for Sean Hannity.

bbc

AC0H

02-21-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote[/b] ]Fact: two of the 911 hijackers were from UAE, and it's been reported that money was laundred thru the UAE that financed the 911 attackers.

Yep, and the others were from Saudi Arabia. Do you have any clue how much of this country is OWNED by foreign countries including Saudi Arabia?

Quote[/b] ]No, not for quite sometime,(British) since 2000 ,hmm 6 years!
So it's OK that Billy Jeff Clinton's administration allowed foreigners to run our ports? Curious nobody is yelling "FOLLOW THE MONEY" on that one.

Quote[/b] ]Racist" nothing racist about it IMO, only Arabs, you know the ones who wear towels on their heads, blow up things,chop off heads, murder want to kill you because you are an American and ect...

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were home grown, all american boys who wanted to kill a bunch of Americans too. Or is that you only have a problem with "Raghead" terrorists?

Quote[/b] ]Pretty strong words comming from someone who would allow the enemy in the front door and personal attacks on n9xr to top it off...

Any idiot like N9XR who posts what he posts about the american military and personally attacks others on this board for having served will get that from me everytime.

AC0H

02-21-2006, 04:17 PM

My point is the title to this thread, and most of the stuff you see on the news is wrong.

Whichever company runs the ports have absolutely nothing to do with the security at said port. PERIOD.

Also just pointing out the fact that it wasn't GWB who let the foreigners "in the front door" in the first place. Who's to say any company who runs our ports can't be infiltrated by terrorists? Contrary to popular opinion not all terrorists are "Ragheads", they could be your neighbor.

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 21 2006,11:07)]Quote[/b] ]Fact: two of the 911 hijackers were from UAE, and it's been reported that money was laundred thru the UAE that financed the 911 attackers.

Yep, and the others were from Saudi Arabia. Do you have any clue how much of this country is OWNED by foreign countries including Saudi Arabia?

Quote[/b] ]No, not for quite sometime,(British) since 2000 ,hmm 6 years!
So it's OK that Billy Jeff Clinton's administration allowed foreigners to run our ports? Curious nobody is yelling "FOLLOW THE MONEY" on that one.

Quote[/b] ]Racist" nothing racist about it IMO, only Arabs, you know the ones who wear towels on their heads, blow up things,chop off heads, murder want to kill you because you are an American and ect...

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were home grown, all american boys who wanted to kill a bunch of Americans too. Or is that you only have a problem with "Raghead" terrorists?

Quote[/b] ]Pretty strong words comming from someone who would allow the enemy in the front door and personal attacks on n9xr to top it off...

Any idiot like N9XR who posts what he posts about the american military and personally attacks others on this board for having served will get that from me everytime.
First, this I have a problem with, IMO no foreign country should be allowed to own American soil, period...

Second, no I did not agree with the Clinton administration allowing the Chinese control of our port in CA, period...

Third, yes I have a problem with people who wear rags on the head and terrorists, this is the United States, we don't wear a rag on our heads,and I don't pray to Allah the moon god period...

Final, calling 9xr an idiot is a personal attack and violates the "Rules of the Road" period...

Come on back to the middle of the road, you are too far right off the road...

kxq

n2nh

02-21-2006, 05:28 PM

I love how people who live inland and nowhere near a port have an expert opinion on this matter. As someone who can see the port here from his QTH and as someone who is working with a Coast Guard group this is a real bonehead idea. Despite all the protests over this, the administration has already said this is a done deal - case closed. Nothing like democracy.

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Feb. 21 2006,09:53)]I think there is something going on in high places that are being kept secret. #And if we knew EVERYthing that we aren't suppose to know, we already would be in a revolution.
I agree with your statement, BTW I had to look your call up, didn't recognise it, congrats on the new call....

kxq

N9XR

02-21-2006, 05:35 PM

AC0H Quote[/b] ]Any idiot like N9XR who posts what he posts about the american military and personally attacks others on this board for having served will get that from me everytime.

You live and lie. Two things you do, and you do them well.

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 21 2006,12:35)]AC0H Quote[/b] ]Any idiot like N9XR who posts what he posts about the american military and personally attacks others on this board for having served will get that from me everytime.

You live and lie. #Two things you do, and you do them well.
I don't think he can help himself, it seems to be a way of life with the party he affiliates... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

kxq

AC0H

02-21-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote[/b] ]First, this I have a problem with, IMO no foreign country should be allowed to own American soil, period...

Second, no I did not agree with the Clinton administration allowing the Chinese control of our port in CA, period...

And I agree with that.
I get sick and tired of people pounding on GWB for doing things like this, which may not even be a done deal contrary to N2NH, that every other president back to Jimmy Carter have done. Panama canal ring a bell? Guess who's running that strategic choke point now? The Chinese.

Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, races, and religions. Getting myopic on muslims is a mistake.

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 05:56 PM

N9XR

02-21-2006, 06:17 PM

k9kxq
Quote[/b] ]I don't think he can help himself, it seems to be a way of life with the party he affiliates...

No. not really. There are some very good people on the right on this forum. I enjoy debating real issues with them.

When it comes to hard liners, they do not know issues, they do not care about truth, and they try to prove their lies as truth by blasting someone. People who show any thought process are a threat to their existance. They fight this by lashing out at these people, not the people's ideas. They can't debate the issue because they don't have a clue. These people are truly sad.

AC0H

02-21-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote[/b] ]When it comes to hard liners, they do not know issues, they do not care about truth, and they try to prove their lies as truth by blasting someone. People who show any thought process are a threat to their existance. They fight this by lashing out at these people, not the people's ideas. They can't debate the issue because they don't have a clue. These people are truly sad.
Pot/Kettle.
Yada, Yada, Yada.
Your posts are just noise.

K6BBC

02-21-2006, 06:55 PM

Clinton. Clinton. Clinton.

Is the only way to defend Bush is by bringing up Clinton? Not much of a defence fellas.

bbc

KW4MW

02-21-2006, 07:00 PM

n9xrQuote[/b] ] . . . .. #There are some very good people on the right on this forum. #I enjoy debating real issues with them.

When it comes to hard liners, they do not know issues, they do not care about truth, and they try to prove their lies as truth by blasting someone.
I'm sure that in your world everyone's thought process should be as lucid as yours. #To wit:
Quote[/b] ]We are not allowed to criticize him (GWB) for anything on here because it is not fair to criticize the mentally retarded like this.
Yeah, those kind of comments really want to make me pay close attention to the rest of your remarks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #

GWB is sitting in one of the most powerful seats in the world, running a considerable portion of this country's business, living in luxury, dining on good food and drink and probably sleeping well at night. #I sense that you on the other hand are sitting at your keyboard, sucking on a warm Mountain Dew and trying to blow the Cheetos crumbs out from between the keys. #Given those choices #I'll take being a "mentally retarded" president anyday. #

Quote[/b] ] People who show any thought process are a threat to their existence. #They fight this by lashing out at these people, not the people's ideas. #They can't debate the issue because they don't have a clue. #These people are truly sad.

Thus we see the last gasp resort of the true liberal. #When all else fails they take the high road and declare themselves as being morally and intellectually superior to those that disagree with them. #

It's liberal speak for "I lose again."

KW4MW

02-21-2006, 07:09 PM

Oh BTW n9xr I am drawing retirement pay from the USNavy, not "entitlements". #

Most of the folks in this country that are drawing "entitlements" seem to be of your particular political persuasion and mindset and they didn't have to do anything to earn it. Really! Nothing!

KG4CGC

02-21-2006, 07:09 PM

In an earlier post I said U.A.I. ... Sorry, it should have been U.A.E.

al2i

02-21-2006, 07:18 PM

The entire port thing is terribly exciting. The foreign ownership of airlines, shipping, even security companies, has me quite worked up. As I, *yawn*, hear about the uh, *yawn*, pressing urgency of na..., *yawn*, national security, I, get really excited. ZZZzzz.

N9XR

02-21-2006, 07:24 PM

Military Entitlements for Retired Military (http://www.armyg1.army.mil/rso/PostRetirement.asp)

Quote[/b] ]Military retirees have earned many benefits and entitlements by their years of faithful service.

Call it what you want MW. Call it a loolypop if you like. It is what it is. (you old entitlement taker.)

I am not taking away from your years of faithful service. I am sure you did very honorable service, but now it is time to go on the dole. I understand.

I for one want to thank you for your 22 years of honorable service. I salute you.

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 10:53 PM

Not to worry folks, President Bush has assured that they are our friends.

President Bush said "the seaports arrangement had been extensively examined by the administration and was a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country."

But it has been reported that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base, hmmm?

Also reported "the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist"

Again not to worry folks, our President has everything under control, he knows more than we little tax payer's, after all we have Homeland Security, NSA, FEMA, FBI, CIA and God only knows what other alphabet service to protect us...

kxq

al2i

02-21-2006, 10:59 PM

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Feb. 21 2006,15:53)]Again not to worry folks, our President has everything under control, he knows more than we little tax payer's, after all we have Homeland Security, NSA, FEMA, FBI, CIA and God only knows what other alphabet service to protect us...
I pay the IRS for "protection".

k9kxq

02-21-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 21 2006,17:59)]Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Feb. 21 2006,15:53)]Again not to worry folks, our President has everything under control, he knows more than we little tax payer's, after all we have Homeland Security, NSA, FEMA, FBI, CIA and God only knows what other alphabet service to protect us...
I pay the IRS for "protection".
Jeeze Louise I forgot to add the IRS too, please forgive my absent minded posting, I think it was a senior moment...

kxq

W8EFA

02-21-2006, 11:19 PM

From AC0HQuote[/b] ]My point is the title to this thread, and most of the stuff you see on the news is wrong

A prime example of extremist right wing thinking. I will not be influenced nor give credence to reported facts that conflict with my beliefs. The extremist is always right.

ka0gkt

02-21-2006, 11:20 PM

Some of the folks commenting in the media really haven't gotten the full story. Some are making it out as though the UAE will be RUNNING the port. What they will be doing is leasing some docks and warehouses. The ports will be run by their various port authorities (the Port Authority of Los Angeles, the Port Authority of New York, the Port authority of Omaha (Yep, Omaha has one) etc. ad nauseum. Port security is provided by The United States Coast Guard (Semper Paratus!), all cargo is inspected (or is supposed to be) by the United States Customs. The UAE is renting some docks and warehouses, not running the port any more than Mitsui OSK lines, Hapang/Lloyd, American Presidents Lines (APL) or any of the other international shippers run the port.

That said, NO, I don't like doing business with the UAE, however it really isn't any bigger of a security risk than when P&O was owned by the British and certainly not as dire a circumstance as some in the media and politics would make it seem. There are plenty of good economic reasons to continue doing business with P&O under United Arab Emirates ownership...but unfortunately many political reasons to not. Politics and the typical American's lackluster understanding of how things work and of economics in general will undoubtedly win in this situation.

Quote[/b] ]"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. "
--Sun-tzu,
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

n0ov

02-21-2006, 11:24 PM

Bush Defends Port Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/ts_nm/security_ports_bush_dc)

The only thing I have to say about that is "What an Idiot"
Any President worth a crap would have the sense to listen a little closer when both parties are raising the BS Flag

KI4BNC

02-21-2006, 11:46 PM

WOW!
Suffered through reading all 9+ pages.
I personally think that american affairs such as this one(ports located inside AMERICAN territories) should be outsourced to AMERICAN COMPANIES.
#I also read somewhere in this thread that someone suggested that(CORRECT ME IF i GET IT WRONG PLEASE-I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND RE-READ ALL 9+ PAGES TO FIND IT.)no American soil should be owned/controlled by foriegn countries.I agree with that.Let's see...:
Mexico to the south letting many illegals come over the border at an alarming rate(not even gonna guess the number)
I think china or japan has control of one(or more?)port(s) on the west koast
Canada not really doing alot to help matters(not bashing them)
and now the thing with the uae handling the security for some of the ports along the eastern seaboard and florida and louisiana?
Just my insane ramblings but I do not feel good about this.

had more but not as much time as i would like.
maybe I will edit this later.

AC0H

02-21-2006, 11:56 PM

Quote[/b] ]Some are making it out as though the UAE will be RUNNING the port. What they will be doing is leasing some docks and warehouses. The ports will be run by their various port authorities (the Port Authority of Los Angeles, the Port Authority of New York, the Port authority of Omaha (Yep, Omaha has one) etc. ad nauseum. Port security is provided by The United States Coast Guard (Semper Paratus!), all cargo is inspected (or is supposed to be) by the United States Customs. The UAE is renting some docks and warehouses, not running the port any more than Mitsui OSK lines, Hapang/Lloyd, American Presidents Lines (APL) or any of the other international shippers run the port.

Shhhhhhhh!!
EFA and the rest of the Bush haters won't like it if you don't buy hook, line, and sinker, ANYTHING reported in the media as "fact". They wouldn't ever print, publish, produce, or air only half the story, or outright fabricate parts (ahem....Rathegate....Dateline exploding Ford trucks.....ahem) would they?

The company from the UAE has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PORT SECURITY!!!

N9XR

02-22-2006, 12:02 AM

Since September the 11th, we've provided more than $700 million in federal grants to close off the vulnerabilities at individual ports, including $15 million for the port in Baltimore. The success of all these efforts should depend on the vigilance of the men and women protecting the ports.

al2i

02-22-2006, 12:26 AM

Another stupid partisan issue that wastes time and energy while the ship of state slowly sinks.

It is about as vital as the colossally stupid wiretapping issue. Still, anything to put chinks in Bush's armor is somewhat positive I suppose.

The only thing that makes me nervous about the ports is that Michael Chertoff is somehow involved. Shudder.

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/BushFollowingOrders.jpg

k9kxq

02-22-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4BNC @ Feb. 21 2006,18:46)]WOW!
Suffered through reading all 9+ pages.
I personally think that american affairs such as this one(ports located inside AMERICAN territories) should be outsourced to AMERICAN COMPANIES.
#I also read somewhere in this thread that someone suggested that(CORRECT ME IF i GET IT WRONG PLEASE-I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND RE-READ ALL 9+ PAGES TO FIND IT.)no American soil should be owned/controlled by foriegn countries.I agree with that.Let's see...:
Mexico to the south letting many illegals come over the border at an alarming rate(not even gonna guess the number)
I think china or japan has control of one(or more?)port(s) on the west koast
Canada not really doing alot to help matters(not bashing them)
and now the thing with the uae handling the security for some of the ports along the eastern seaboard and florida and louisiana?
Just my insane ramblings but I do not feel good about this.

had more but not as much time as i would like.
maybe I will edit this later.
Yang Ming/China Shipping On-Dock Railyard
Yang Ming Line operates a 130-acre (53-hectare) container terminal in the West Basin area of the Port of Los Angeles.(Clinton's deal)

kxq

K6BBC

02-22-2006, 03:47 AM

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Feb. 21 2006,18:23)]Quote[/b] (KI4BNC @ Feb. 21 2006,18:46)]WOW!
Suffered through reading all 9+ pages.
I personally think that american affairs such as this one(ports located inside AMERICAN territories) should be outsourced to AMERICAN COMPANIES.
#I also read somewhere in this thread that someone suggested that(CORRECT ME IF i GET IT WRONG PLEASE-I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND RE-READ ALL 9+ PAGES TO FIND IT.)no American soil should be owned/controlled by foriegn countries.I agree with that.Let's see...:
Mexico to the south letting many illegals come over the border at an alarming rate(not even gonna guess the number)
I think china or japan has control of one(or more?)port(s) on the west koast
Canada not really doing alot to help matters(not bashing them)
and now the thing with the uae handling the security for some of the ports along the eastern seaboard and florida and louisiana?
Just my insane ramblings but I do not feel good about this.

had more but not as much time as i would like.
maybe I will edit this later.
Yang Ming/China Shipping On-Dock Railyard
Yang Ming Line operates a 130-acre (53-hectare) container terminal in the West Basin area of the Port of Los Angeles.(Clinton's deal)

kxq
And Clinton had sex in the Oval Office too...

You guys are not for real.

Clearly Bush is cracking up. He was never qualified to be president and this is the result.

k6bbc
conservative

N9XR

02-22-2006, 04:07 PM

So now we find out that Dubya is promoting the control of the said ports to be commuted to the UAE because a secret committee has reviewed the situation, and has tediously considered all angles on this proposal. The committee had a unanamous decision in favor of the UAE deal on the 13th of February.

Donald Rumsfeld is on that secret committee, and he has come out in favor in public of the deal even though he never heard of it until this past weekend!

So much consideration and unanimititity has been poured into this decision. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif

It has to be good.

kc7jty

02-22-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 20 2006,18:26)]The only thing that makes me nervous about the ports is that Michael Chertoff is somehow involved. #Shudder.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif He's a gem isn't he?

kg4kww

02-22-2006, 06:26 PM

Bush, Congress clash over ports deal (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/port.security/index.html)

Bush, must be expecting to make a boat load of dough from this deal after he leaves office, that's why he wants ti to go through. Bush, is a total Idiot on this one.

N9XR

02-22-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote (al2i @ Feb. 20 2006,18:26)
Quote[/b] ]The only thing that makes me nervous about the ports is that Michael Chertoff is somehow involved. Shudder.
There is one thing that can be said about Bush. He's a man who is not afraid to roll up his sleeves and take his Chertoff! Take that Bush Bashers.

K6BBC

02-22-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Feb. 22 2006,11:26)]Bush, Congress clash over ports deal (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/port.security/index.html)

Bush, must be expecting to make a boat load of dough from this deal after he leaves office, that's why he wants ti to go through. Bush, is a total Idiot on this one.

What happened to you KWW? You have changed - fo the better I might add.

W0UZR

02-22-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 22 2006,13:15)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Feb. 22 2006,11:26)]Bush, Congress clash over ports deal (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/port.security/index.html)

Bush, must be expecting to make a boat load of dough from this deal after he leaves office, that's why he wants ti to go through. Bush, is a total Idiot on this one.

What happened to you KWW? #You have changed - fo the better I might add.
Yah, me too, I'm afraid........

Anyone see this yet?

VETO (http://www.moneysense.ca/news/company_news/shownews.jsp?content=D8FU5KR80_ap)

n2nh

02-22-2006, 07:43 PM

Anybody see these?

President George W. Bush did not know (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-22T181216Z_01_N22386720_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS.xml) about a deal to hand over operations at major U.S. ports to an Arab company until after his administration approved it...

From the Wash. Post (collumnist):

Quote[/b] ]Bush may actually find more support on this issue from the liberal side of the spectrum than from conservatives.

Why is this so important? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/22/BL2006022201449.html)

k9kxq

02-22-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Feb. 22 2006,14:43)]Anybody see these?

President George W. Bush #did not know (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-22T181216Z_01_N22386720_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS.xml) about a deal to hand over operations at major U.S. ports to an Arab company until after his administration approved it...

From the Wash. Post (collumnist):

Quote[/b] ]Bush may actually find more support on this issue from the liberal side of the spectrum than from conservatives.

Why is this so important? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/22/BL2006022201449.html)
Hard to believe the President didn't know of this before hand, his administration is making deals with out his knowledge?
I say BS to this load of bull hockey, the President is supposed to be well informed on any matter of security...

The President is worried about the message this will send to the UAE? we Americans have news for him! the only message that should be sent is, we Americans are in no way allowing a terrorist backing organization to hold our most valuable ports.

In all my years I have never seen such, I'm ashamed of our President and in no way trust his decisions. I only can hope our congress will put him in check untill his time at the White House is over, or he is removed from office...

kxq

kc7jty

02-22-2006, 09:54 PM

W knows what he's doing. He don't give a damn about the country, never did, he don't have to. We are so great and powerful a nation that whatever he takes/screws up can be absorbed.
Don't worry about it.

W8EFA

02-22-2006, 10:22 PM

The first rule of this administration is - will our cronies make money. Everything else, including the good of the American people, are secondary considerations.

WB2WIK

02-22-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 22 2006,15:22)]The first rule of this administration is - will our cronies make money. Everything else, including the good of the American people, are secondary considerations.
I agree.

After all, ol' dubya can only "serve" another two years, and after that he expects to sit back and be served.

Only two more years to cut those final deals....

I understand the Statue of Liberty might be up for sale, and dubya accepts PayPal.

K6BBC

02-22-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 22 2006,15:48)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 22 2006,15:22)]The first rule of this administration is - #will our cronies make money. #Everything else, including the good of the American people, #are secondary considerations.
I agree.

After all, ol' dubya can only "serve" another two years, and after that he expects to sit back and be served.

Only two more years to cut those final deals....

I understand the Statue of Liberty might be up for sale, and dubya accepts PayPal.
You should not say that about a man who thinks he talks to God.

Two years seems like such a long time.

n0ov

02-23-2006, 12:07 AM

How long depends on who gets nominated to replace him. If things go the way they have the past five elections we may wish that those two years would have been longer.

Let's just hope the media and the crazies allow someone worth a crap to be nominated on both parties.

Wouldn't be nice to actually have a choise?

n2nh

02-23-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 22 2006,19:07)]Wouldn't be nice to actually have a choise?
Amen.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

W2ILP

02-23-2006, 12:16 AM

Here we have another Bushy dodge.
GWB defended outsourcing the port management. He later said that he did not know it was going to be outsourced. How can a man defend something if he doesn't even know what he is defending?

w2ilp (Infidels Leave Ports)...to Muslim control?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

K6BBC

02-23-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Feb. 22 2006,17:07)]How long depends on who gets nominated to replace him. #If things go the way they have the past five elections we may wish that those two years would have been longer.

Let's just hope the media and the crazies allow someone worth a crap to be nominated on both parties.

Wouldn't be nice to actually have a choise?
I agree - things has really gone to hell in the past 5 years.

k4kyv

02-23-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 19 2006,17:43)]There is a massive amount of defense for Dubya on this forum. Everytime someone complains about his performance, it's the same response. "HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING. NOTHING HE DOES SAYS OR IMPLIES." If we complain about decisions he makes in defense, it's not his responsibility, although he nominated the people who make those decisions.

We are not allowed to criticize him for anything on here because it is not fair to criticize the mentally retarded like this.

Quote[/b] ]Common folks, if you must point fingers at least you could get a little better subject matter.

What is this guy really responsibile for? I would like to see something that Dubya has accomplished that would make me proud. I do not believe that this is asking too much. NeoCons on here would never make this request of the left wing.
The White House said Wednesday that Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

K6BBC

02-23-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Feb. 22 2006,17:20)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 19 2006,17:43)]There is a massive amount of defense for Dubya on this forum. #Everytime someone complains about his performance, it's the same response. #"HE'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING. #NOTHING HE DOES SAYS OR IMPLIES." #If we complain about decisions he makes in defense, it's not his responsibility, although he nominated the people who make those decisions. #

We are not allowed to criticize him for anything on here because it is not fair to criticize the mentally retarded like this.

Quote[/b] ]Common folks, if you must point fingers at least you could get a little better subject matter.

What is this guy really responsibile for? #I would like to see something that Dubya has accomplished that would make me proud. #I do not believe that this is asking too much. #NeoCons on here would never make this request of the left wing.
The White House said Wednesday that Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/
Is that like getting a note from your mom?

kg4kww

02-23-2006, 05:28 AM

What this boils down to is $$$$$$$$ and lots of it for someone behind the scenes. I think Bush knows more than he wants to be known about this deal. I'm a republican and always have been, but, after Bush, I'm starting to rethink my position.

This deal will give the bad guys what they want a door to access the yellow brick road with. Bush and his buddies don't want to hear that because it's reality.

True or False?

al2i

02-23-2006, 05:33 AM

I hope the deal goes through because we will be a lot safer with it than without it.

kf6rdn

02-23-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Feb. 22 2006,16:30)]Is that like getting a note from your mom?
Or getting a note from the Condi at the #UN to be allowed to go potty. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
(Or however that went)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2005/150905bathroombreak.jpg

kg4kww

02-23-2006, 05:48 AM

ABC News Has Just Broken This little tid bit about the Ports Issue, Check It Out.

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1652035)

k5xit

02-23-2006, 02:08 PM

I would get the facts before I make a judgment call. I do however think the administration screwed up big time by not breifing the congress well in advance of the deal. One must consider that it has been Ok with the U.S. Navy for a long while and these folks are the port ops. in Au and Uk among others. The Demos are so hung up on a "above the law" V.P. for not calling a press conference to announce the bagging of his attorney friend that they just now woke up to "breaking News" that many of us have known for over 30 days. What a bunch of jerks!

KG6JTB

02-23-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Feb. 22 2006,22:48)]ABC News Has Just Broken This little tid bit about the Ports Issue, Check It Out.

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1652035)
Quote[/b] ]The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Yes - what a dumb*ss. Goodbye Republican party you lying, oil pimping sellouts!

Dave
KG6JTB

al2i

02-23-2006, 02:47 PM

Even normally bright people are flipping out about this as if they didn't know that we have ALMOST ZERO SECURITY with or without the ownership by Dubai.

I am strongly in favor of both the Dubai ownership and the big, stupid flap. I just hope that the Dubai ownership stands so that some genuine security might come of it.

N9XR

02-23-2006, 02:58 PM

k4kyv
Quote[/b] ]The White House said Wednesday that Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration.

]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815[/QUOTE] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815[/quote)

What say you now? #

What is Bush responsible for? #He is not responsible for the people he chooses, and we even have people who defend him for not knowing what his administration is doing. #Isn't that out of control? #I think it is fair to say that Bush is out of control on several levels. #

Quote[/b] ]The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
Even if you continue to claim that this issue (national security) is too low of a priority for the president, he is unable to find people to work in his administration who are capable to disseminate information to the proper officials in congress.
A higher percentage of the UAE population hijacked airplanes on Sept 11 than the percentage of the Saudi population hijacked airplanes. #This is not a racial slur, but a fact. #UAE exports nuke material to Iran and Libya. #They have also had quite a history in funding terrorism in the BCCI scandal.

Why should they be rewarded?

w5klb

02-23-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 23 2006,07:47)]Even normally bright people are flipping out about this as if they didn't know that we have ALMOST ZERO SECURITY with or without the ownership by Dubai.

I am strongly in favor of both the Dubai ownership and the big, stupid flap. #I just hope that the Dubai ownership stands so that some genuine security might come of it.
The Department of Homeland Security
The US Customs Service
The US Coast Guard

And you think this is "ALMOST ZERO SECURITY"? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But I too am in favor of UAE ownership. They've contributed $100M to the Katrina disaster and a LOT of information to help us fight "The War on Terror."

If we deny Dubai of ownership, than we could be "shooting" ourselves "in the foot" as far as the "The War on Terror" is concerned.

N9XR

02-23-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote[/b] ]The Department of Homeland Security
The US Customs Service
The US Coast Guard

And you think this is "ALMOST ZERO SECURITY"?

But I too am in favor of UAE ownership. They've contributed $100M to the Katrina disaster and a LOT of information to help us fight "The War on Terror."

If we deny Dubai of ownership, than we could be "shooting" ourselves "in the foot" as far as the "The War on Terror" is concerned.

Fer cryssakes. I disagree with al2i, but that is no reason to go out and attack the guy. It is his opinion that we should approve the deal to improve security. I disagree with that logic, but he is free to voice his thought out opinion.

Approach people differently and maybe both of you will come away less ignorant.

al2i

02-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 23 2006,08:17)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 23 2006,07:47)]Even normally bright people are flipping out about this as if they didn't know that we have ALMOST ZERO SECURITY with or without the ownership by Dubai.

I am strongly in favor of both the Dubai ownership and the big, stupid flap. I just hope that the Dubai ownership stands so that some genuine security might come of it.
The Department of Homeland Security
The US Customs Service
The US Coast Guard

And you think this is "ALMOST ZERO SECURITY"? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But I too am in favor of UAE ownership. They've contributed $100M to the Katrina disaster and a LOT of information to help us fight "The War on Terror."

If we deny Dubai of ownership, than we could be "shooting" ourselves "in the foot" as far as the "The War on Terror" is concerned.
Since the idiot partisanship seems to have jeopardized datamining and keyword scanning of international calls, the NSA -- which is the only one of those agencys that probably amounted to anything -- may not be as effective anymore.

But seriously, the Department of Homeland Security looks like a World record BS boondoggle to me.

The US Customs Service? HaHa. Good one OM

The Coast Guard: Going through tens of thousands of Containers and millions of items daily? I think not.

The only thing they are doing that actually makes me feel better is nuke detection. (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0766.xml) So instead of zero maybe I should have said infinitesimally above zero.

w5klb

02-23-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 23 2006,07:58)]A higher percentage of the UAE population hijacked airplanes on Sept 11 than the percentage of the Saudi population hijacked airplanes. #This is not a racial slur, but a fact. #UAE exports nuke material to Iran and Libya. #

15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and only two were from the United Arab Emrites.

Read HERE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)

You liberal "fuzzy math" doesn't figure.

And you'll have to provide a "link" of where you got your infomation of the UAE exporting nuclear material to Iran. I haven't never heard of this, but I could be wrong.

al2i

02-23-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 23 2006,08:45)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 23 2006,07:58)]A higher percentage of the UAE population hijacked airplanes on Sept 11 than the percentage of the Saudi population hijacked airplanes. This is not a racial slur, but a fact. UAE exports nuke material to Iran and Libya.

15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and only two were from the United Arab Emrites.

Read HERE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)

You liberal "fuzzy math" doesn't figure.

And you'll have to provide a "link" of where you got your infomation of the UAE exporting nuclear material to Iran. I haven't never heard of this, but I could be wrong.
I just checked the population info and n9xr is quite right OM.

w5klb

02-23-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 23 2006,08:26)]Fer cryssakes. #I disagree with al2i, but that is no reason to go out and attack the guy. #

Let's see...

I posted no obsentites

I posted no profanities

I posted no personal attacks.

I followed Glen's "Rules of the Road".

I respectully disagree with Dave on the port security issue. That's it. I don't think Dave, AL2I, is a "bad person" because he disagrees with me. He is entittled and I welcome his opinion.

Now if you that I "attacked" someone here, I strongly suggest that you get Bill, or Glen here and let them read my posts. Until YOU are a moderator on this forum, you are in NO position to be making "judgement calls" about anything #I post on this forum. If you don't like what you read, go to another thread. There are plently of them here.

One other thing...

What you think about me has absolutely no bearing on me whatsoever. With a "click" of my mouse, you and everyonne here disappear.

Now back to the thread...

w5klb

02-23-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 23 2006,08:48)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 23 2006,08:45)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 23 2006,07:58)]A higher percentage of the UAE population hijacked airplanes on Sept 11 than the percentage of the Saudi population hijacked airplanes. #This is not a racial slur, but a fact. #UAE exports nuke material to Iran and Libya. #

15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and only two were from the United Arab Emrites.

Read HERE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks)

You liberal "fuzzy math" doesn't figure.

And you'll have to provide a "link" of where you got your infomation of the UAE exporting nuclear material to Iran. I haven't never heard of this, but I could be wrong.
I just checked the population info and n9xr is quite right OM.
No one has posted a link to back this up as I requested from XR.

I posted a link, where's XR's? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Dave,

If you have a link, post it so I may verify it, OM. Or PM me here.

al2i

02-23-2006, 04:39 PM

UAE Population is 2.5 million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html)

Saudi Population is 26.4 million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html)

I can see where this is going though, because of the massive number of non-national residents and because the number may be narrowed further to just Dubai, instead of all of the UAE. Everyone is right on this one.

al2i

02-23-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Feb. 23 2006,09:13)]I don't think Dave, AL2I, is a "bad person" because he disagrees with me. He is entittled and I welcome his opinion.
Wrong again. I am baaaaaad to the bone. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

N9XR

02-23-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote[/b] ]The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
News story (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002823048_portsemirates23.html)

I'm surprised you don't believe me. There's dozens of news stories on this topic. I accept apologies for the doubts.

KLB, I am not claiming that you broke any rules. However, we could all look over our posts to be a little more thoughtful before tapping the "Quick Post" button.

K3XR

02-23-2006, 05:51 PM

It's great to see Mrs. Bill Clinton, and Chuckie (former used car salesman) Scammer so concerned about our ports. #Seems like they were not too concerned during the Clinton Administration when Clinton Sold 80 F-16;s to the UAE. #You can find the entire story on the Clintonfoundation.org web site. #"V.P. Gore lauds Lockheed Martin sale of F-16's to the United Arab Emirates....80 F-16's at a cost of $6 Billion.

w0aew

02-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Feb. 23 2006,10:51)]It's great to see Mrs. Bill Clinton, and Chuckie (former used car salesman) Scammer so concerned about our ports. Seems like they were not too concerned during the Clinton Administration when Clinton Sold 80 F-16;s to the UAE. You can find the entire story on the Clintonfoundation.org web site. "V.P. Gore lauds Lockheed Martin sale of F-16's to the United Arab Emirates....80 F-16's at a cost of $6 Billion.
If we were within range of the UAE's F-16s, then yeah, that'd be something to worry about.

Putting a UAE-owned authority in charge at important US ports is something else.

Apples and oranges.

AC0H

02-23-2006, 06:09 PM

I don't know how the US government gets away with nixing the buyout of a British company by a UAE company?

The US governement can certianly nix a deal between a US company and a foreign company/government ala China and one of the oil companies. Has any of the contract language between the british comany and the different port authorities been published or is everybody still guessin?

n2nh

02-23-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 21 2006,12:45)]Quote[/b] ]First, this I have a problem with, IMO no foreign country should be allowed to own American soil, period...

Second, no I did not agree with the Clinton administration allowing the Chinese control of our port in CA, period...

And I agree with that.
I get sick and tired of people pounding on GWB for doing things like this, which may not even be a done deal contrary to N2NH, that every other president back to Jimmy Carter have done. Panama canal ring a bell? Guess who's running that strategic choke point now? The Chinese.

Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, races, and religions. Getting myopic on muslims is a mistake.
Of course it's a done deal. Vote against it and it'll get VETOED. Even though Dubya's said that he's out of the loop in his own White House, he's still adamant about this deal going through. Why?

And, May I ask, how many Muslims live on your block? I have friends and neighbors here that are Muslims. A good many of them - who were here for 9/11 - don't think this is a good thing either. Mind you there were some I didn't know. Some who were really proud of the 9/11 attacks and happy to see our blood spilled too. Were you aware of the Muslim child who was in High School here? He was caught looking out the window of the classroom. When the teacher asked what he was doing, he pointed to two buildings in the distance (The World Trade Center). He told her, "See those two buildings? They won't be there next week."

Myopic. Hardly. Not forgetful either.

KW4MW

02-24-2006, 01:03 AM

k9kjmQuote[/b] ]Yeah, As already mentioned it all gets back to MONEY.

To figure out most anything, Just FOLLOW the MONEY!

UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina)

Quote[/b] ]Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday. . . .

. . The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.

The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution.

Submitted for your comments

w0aew

02-24-2006, 01:41 AM

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ Feb. 23 2006,18:03)]k9kjmQuote[/b] ]Yeah, As already mentioned it all gets back to MONEY.

To figure out most anything, Just FOLLOW the MONEY!

UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina)

Quote[/b] ]Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday. . . .

. . The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.

The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution.

Submitted for your comments
In the last paragraph of the article you link to is this little nugget:

Quote[/b] ]The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the
George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors.

So, the UAE and the Bushes are tight. Nothing bad about that. But it also seems that the UAE is tight with some other unsavory characters. According to CBS: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml)

Quote[/b] ]One of the last proposals, which he described to the 9/11 Commission in a closed-door session, involved a cruise missile attack against a remote hunting camp in the Afghan desert, where bin Laden was believed to be socializing with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates.

This put us in a touchy situation. To smack Bin Laden would have also smacked some UAE royalty (the guys who actually run the country in this case).

So it looks like the UAE is pretty tight with bin Laden.

Are there dots to be connected here? Perhaps. I