Posted on 02/24/2006 12:20:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
FR Poll: After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Jimmy C. is such a maroon he did not even factor in my equation... After supporting Hamas, who could pay attention to him?
This was probably the 3rd or 4th time in the last 2 years that DP World and UAE were investigated. They would have invoked the same law last year for the CSX deal (DP World bought CSX's international ports).
DP World was also surely screened for work with our naval vessels in the UAE. And DP World/UAE were surely screened before we signed treaties with them allowing our U.S. personell to inspect containers in foreign ports.
So it is quite possible that this was old hat, old news stuff to those doing the review.
Also, the law in force puts this group outside direct control of the president so that the process can be "de-politicized".
So it is funny that democrats are accusing Bush himself of "thwarting the law" by not having a 45-day formal review. He had nothing to do with it, the "independent review board" made that decision.
It's like the Judicial hearings. With Estrada, the Democrats said that they Really Really had to look close at him because appeals courts are important. THen they easily passed Roberts to the same appeals court -- you would presume after REally Really looking at him.
But two years later, he's up for the supreme court, and the dems are saying "Well that was just a trivial review for the appeals court, now we really have to look hard at him".
You never know when someone's going to stop and say "Why didn't you to a full-blown investigation?"
Imagine you have the same guy clean your furnace every year, and after 10 years your wife screamed at you because you just called him up to come in without first having a family meeting to discuss it. Sure, you could have had the meeting, but you've just called him for 9 straight years and nobody complained, so why are you being yelled at for thinking nobody would be upset this time?
Oppose.
Same reasons as ziggy. Who care how good Dubai is in controlling ports? What about the good 'ol USA? I think we can manage it.
No, Michelle's coming over to my house after class.
But, here's my humble take on it all: the UAE invests $6.something billion here. They surely don't want that investment to go south, right? Wouldn't they be even more attuned to security concerns as far as what's being loaded into these containers before they're shipped here from foreign ports? Because the slightest problem could have the whole thing yanked away from them, couldn't it? And when it comes to security, interrogations and capture of bad guys, having a financially-motivated muslim going after the jihadists is better than having our own guys have to do it.
Support
Support ! The mis-leading MSM and un-informed don't know what security is about. Ownership has nothing to do with the Security issue. No one complained when the Chinese Army took the Panama Canal completely on Klintoon's watch (initiated the deal on Jimmy Carter's watch) and now the hypocrite Carter condemns it? HA !
Regretfully, I oppose it. Regretfully, because it saddens me to oppose GWB, and I know the Democrats would be far worse.
There are several things that you said that I don't believe Just because in a raw sense(Without legaly documented obligation)Some people are saying it is so. But one thing stands out to be wrong based on facts given. And that is that they will not keep the same records as everyone else. They are not required to do that. Many of there records will be kept in there home country.
Give me your plan. Do you want the ports nationalized so that unions can gorge at a bigger trough, or do you think schumer can twitch his nose and voila, all American companies.
You've been posting almost none stop on these threads for the last two or three days and here you are admitting you STILL don't have the facts regarding those questions?
Why is it that others have been able to discern the answers to those questions and you can't?
Or perhaps you don't like what you're read?
How coincidental. I was just thinking of the blackboard too, and was wondering if the 'gods' had a heading for this particular occasion? I'm not sure it fits exactly, but I think it's close. You be the judge:
by Rudyard Kipling
"As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breath of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four-
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
The Gods of the Copybook Heading by Rudyard Kipling As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breath of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four-
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
___________________________
I think it's too late to alter the course, but this thing MAY come back and bite us in the butt big time. I really didn't like the way that poem ended, and for that reason alone I vote against it today. Where do we begin to turn back the tide?
"They surely don't want that investment to go south, right?"
Exactly right. The UAE is trying to build a modern country that doesn't merely rely on oil revenue, and they need cash flow to do it.
"Wouldn't they be even more attuned to security concerns as far as what's being loaded into these containers before they're shipped here from foreign ports?"
They're running a good number of those foreign ports, and they're already assisting us in screening the containers at the point of origin.
The administration didn't say it was 6 ports. SCHUMER said it was 6 ports. The administration said they went through the normal review process and no security concerns were raised. They didn't say anything about the businesses.
The only reason you just learned today what was involved is because you never thought to go to a publicly posted internet site for the company and look at what they operated. It only takes a minute (BTW, i didn't check the number either, but then again I didn't care how many there were).
When people talked about "secrets" in the sales agreement, I went to the P&O stockholder page, and had the agreement complete with the "secret section" in minutes. This is a publicly traded company, not much is secret.
The cabinet heads did NOT do the review of the deal. There are sub-heads within each area (I think there are 17 areas) that are assigned this task, specifically to REMOVE it from the heads which are seen as more political. The process is supposed to be secret by law in order to prevent political interference.
The cabinet heads did not know about the deal, because that's the way the law tells them they have to do it. Bush got the approval from the committee, and passed it on like the law says to do.
So be opposed if you want, but don't blame it on secrecy or lying by the administration.
I support the finding of the government officials who our entrusted with our protection that there is no security issue, because they have all the facts and are the ones that would know if there was a problem.
I wish P&O wasn't selling, but it's not my place to tell people what to do with their own property. I agree with those who wish our ports were owned by american companies, but I'm not opposing this SPECIFIC deal on that ground because that ship has sailed long ago.
"I think it's too late to alter the course, but this thing MAY come back and bite us in the butt big time."
And not doing WILL come back and bite us in the butt big time. Insulting allies who take big risks on our behalf is a great way to make enemies.
I smell ozone.
I think those who suggest the deal ITSELF had anything to do with Bush are dead wrong. The deal is just a business deal.
And those who suggest Bush manipulated the process to approve the transfer because of strategic reasons are dead wrong, because Bush wasn't even allowed to be a part of the process, by law.
I do believe that the government undersecretaries are part of an administration that understand the strategic value of partners, and are keenly aware of what we need to do to make us safe. So I believe they made this decision based on those factors, and while I don't HAVE that insight, I trust their judgment. If I didn't, I'd have to call for impeachment because the number one task of our government is to protect us and if the executive CAN'T do the job we need one who can.
Well, this deal is no worse than having China in charge of West Coast ports, so on that basis, I SUPPORT allowing the UAE acquisition to go ahead. However, in general I think it is fundamentally wrong to have any major U.S. seaports or airports owned by foreign entities. In the long run, I believe this outsourcing of America greatly erodes our middle class, eventually leaving us as polarized, economically, as most of the rest of the world.
Well, this deal is no worse than having China in charge of West Coast ports, so on that basis, I SUPPORT allowing the UAE acquisition to go ahead. However, in general I think it is fundamentally wrong to have any major U.S. seaports or airports owned by foreign entities. In the long run, I believe this outsourcing of America greatly erodes our middle class, eventually leaving us as polarized, economically, as most of the rest of the world.
The national poll was a sampling of people who predominantly didn't have any real knowledge of how the ports are actually run but bombarded by an endless 7/24 disinformation campaign...the majority opposed.
Now we're watching a new poll on FR, where facts have allowed to counter the disinformation campaign...and look what's happening.
I have no idea if this sale is a good idea or not from a political standpoint, but the lack of factual information has been the most disturbing part of the whole story.
I was undecided then, and I'm undecided now -- from a political standpoint. But there's no question that there is no sound legal reason not to let it go through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.