PDA

View Full Version : Bush is threatening to use his Veto over this Port thing


Hatfield
2/21/2006, 04:24 PM
interesting first veto if he does use it.
Ike
2/21/2006, 04:30 PM
sometimes, you can really use the cash....
JohnnyMack
2/21/2006, 04:33 PM
.
IBTT
2/21/2006, 04:34 PM
Like taking candy from a baby. :D
colleyvillesooner
2/21/2006, 04:36 PM
.

weak
Vaevictis
2/21/2006, 04:50 PM
Just to be clear, he's threatening to veto legislation to PREVENT the UAE from getting the contract, yes?


Edit: Heck, even my statement may have been unclear. He's threatening to veto legislation. The legislation attempts to prevent/hinder the UAE company's acquisition of the contract. In other words, the veto will permit the UAE to get it.
Hatfield
2/21/2006, 04:51 PM
to be honest i think he is in a no win situation.

americans don't like the thought of the ports in arab hands, yet the reality is that it probably isn't that big of a deal.

he has a defendable postition that nobody is going to listen to
Hatfield
2/21/2006, 04:51 PM
Just to be clear, he's threatening to veto legislation to PREVENT the UAE from getting the contract, yes?

prevent/hinder is a true statement.
Widescreen
2/21/2006, 04:53 PM
Perception is often more important than reality. I know nothing about this UAE company but I'd still rather not risk our major ports being in the hands of Arabs. It's not a racial thing with me, it's the reality that middle-eastern arabs want to stick hot pokers up our poop shoots. I'm just not interested in that.
Mjcpr
2/21/2006, 04:56 PM
to be honest i think he is in a no win situation.

americans don't like the thought of the ports in arab hands, yet the reality is that it probably isn't that big of a deal.

That sounds like a no-lose situation to me. Take it out of the hands of Arabs, everyone is happy.
BoomerJack
2/21/2006, 04:58 PM
Let me get this straight.

The company HQ'd in London that presently has the contracts to operate these several ports is being acquired by a Dubai, UAE state owned company. This will then result in these US ports being run/operated by another foreign company.

Questions

1. Is there now proposed legislation that will prohibit the Dubai UAE state owned company from running/operating these ports?

2. Is Bush 43 saying he is going to VETOE this legislation thereby allowing these US ports to be run/operated by the Dubai UAE state owned company?

Thanks in advance for the help.
Okla-homey
2/21/2006, 05:00 PM
Perception is often more important than reality. I know nothing about this UAE company but I'd still rather not risk our major ports being in the hands of Arabs. It's not a racial thing with me, it's the reality that middle-eastern arabs want to stick hot pokers up our poop shoots. I'm just not interested in that.

Why do you hate an entire race of people for the badness of just a few million of them?;)
Hatfield
2/21/2006, 05:05 PM
1. giggity giggity
2. rabble rabble.
Okla-homey
2/21/2006, 05:08 PM
Just to be clear, he's threatening to veto legislation to PREVENT the UAE from getting the contract, yes?


Edit: Heck, even my statement may have been unclear. He's threatening to veto legislation. The legislation attempts to prevent/hinder the UAE company's acquisition of the contract. In other words, the veto will permit the UAE to get it.

Yep, its a free trade dealio. IMHO, there is no compelling reason not to allow the UAE based multi-national corporation to take over from the British based multi-national corporation in the running of six American port operations.

They won't be in charge of security at those ports anyway, just taking stuff off ships when it arrives from somewhere else and putting stuff on ships we're sending somewhere else. They'll do that with the same American workers who are doing it now. Also, we're not canning the US Customs Service, Coast Guard or civil Port Authorities -- its just shuffling sea-land containers mostly.

Again, nothing to get our drawers in a twist over.
Vaevictis
2/21/2006, 05:09 PM
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004834.htm


"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."

(in response to BoomerJack)
Soonrboy
2/21/2006, 05:15 PM
why can't we protect our own harbors?
Hatfield
2/21/2006, 05:21 PM
why can't we protect our own harbors?

same reason we can't protect our borders....no desire/lack of funding/insert excuse here.
85Sooner
2/21/2006, 05:31 PM
THere are no companies in this business owned in the US. This is Britains last one which they are selling off. There is a kneejerk reaction going on out there.I don't know the answer.
Soonrboy
2/21/2006, 06:15 PM
THere are no companies in this business owned in the US. This is Britains last one which they are selling off. There is a kneejerk reaction going on out there.I don't know the answer.


Isn't it called the Coast Guard?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/21/2006, 06:15 PM
That sounds like a no-lose situation to me. Take it out of the hands of Arabs, everyone is happy.The pres. states that all the security precautions have been taken, and the whole picture examined thoroughly, and there is no known cause for concern.
Mjcpr
2/21/2006, 06:17 PM
The pres. states that all the security precautions have been taken, and the whole picture examined thoroughly, and there is no known cause for concern.

I'm always concerned about the unknown causes.
IronSooner
2/21/2006, 06:19 PM
It still seems odd that we'd let any country (UAE/UK/Sweden, etc) have any connection to our borders or ports.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Japan prevent foreign companies/citizens from buying property in Japan? Granted they have far less real estate than we do, but there are parts of that policy I'd agree with.
Harry Beanbag
2/21/2006, 06:22 PM
Since port security is such a joke, what's the big deal? It's not like they're going to stop us from inspecting every container like we aren't doing anyway right now.
Vaevictis
2/21/2006, 06:24 PM
Last I heard, only Japanese citizens (and companies) can own land.

(My grandmother had to give $20 million worth of land in Tokyo to her brother that she inherited because she lost her Japanese citizenship in order to become an American one. Very expensive naturalization. :) )
Hatfield
2/21/2006, 06:52 PM
harry hit the nail on the head.

the arabs aren't going to inspect the boxes that the brits weren't inspecting.

only the name is going to change.

and billyfavor...forgive us if we don't just line up to the trough of "well the president said so"

depending on what camp you listen to you get a skewed version of how detailed the vetting process was. Bush camp = very thorough; most everyone else = rushed decision after a few days of looking into it.
Okla-homey
2/21/2006, 07:07 PM
Okay, I did some homework and I went for a run for an hour to think about this thing.

here's my position, FWIW.

I support the administration in this matter

here's why:

- All we're talking about is a transfer of port operations at six US ports (the toters and lifters NOT the security or control mechanisms) from one foreign multi-national to another.

- UAE is a US ally. They have bent over backwards to help us in the GWOT including allowing basing of US land, air and naval forces.

- This is also a kind of quid pro quo. You know, they help us, we throw them a bone. that's how diplomacy, politics and business works as I understand them.

- I don't know for sure, but my instincts tell me that some of the outrage is because labor unions with interests at the impacted ports are probably not too jazzed about re-negotiating their contracts. Just a hunch mind you, but like daddy always said, "Follow the money."

- Finally, this is the right thing to do. Folks on both sides of the aisle are quick to pat themeselves on the back, and poke themselves proudly in the chest and exclaim, "I don't dislike Muslims, I just dislike Islamo-fascist terrorists, in fact, some of my best friends are Muslims, etc., ad nauseum"

To summarize, here, we have a clear case of people (libs and conservatives) raising a "tempest in a teapot" over the fact a multi-national corporation owned by brown people who happen to be Muslims and wear kaffiyahs on ceremonial occasions may get to do business in the USofA doing something they do well at ports all over the world. You can't have it both ways. You either are capable of making an intellectual distinction between good guys and bad guys based not on their religion/race but based on their malice and hostility for our way of life -- or not. I hope we are able to do the former.

If this deal does not go thru, it will just go to further fuel distrust for us in that part of the world...you know, "See, even if you help them and try to be friends, they disrespect you and won't do business with you because you are Arab."

I think that's where the administration is on this and I support their decision...as does Jimmy Carter, and I didn't think I'd ever agree with him about anything ever again.
Palermo10
2/21/2006, 07:08 PM
I'm only agreeable if I get a free night in that bad *** hotel that looks like a sail.
KaiserSooner
2/21/2006, 10:16 PM
Well, to me, it sounds like the reaction to this deal is nothing but xenophobic kneejerk-ery, fueled by politics. And that is sad: the politics and the xenophobia.

Furthermore, from the articles I've read, there's no reason to believe this state-owned company will compromise port security. No evidence whatsoever.

However, the BS coming out of the White House concerning how not approving this deal will only lead to more distrust in the Arab world, I find...well...disingenuous, to say the least.




I'm only agreeable if I get a free night in that bad *** hotel that looks like a sail.

That badass hotel is the Burj al-Arab.
IronSooner
2/21/2006, 10:17 PM
I can't say I entirely agree, but I'd like to know the full details of it. It would look very bad on us if we were to yank it at this point...our reputation regarding muslims could get that much worse. In the end I'm sure it'll go through.

However, ideally it'd be nice to handle anything regarding our ports or borders through only US companies and exclude everyone, not just arabs, but canadians, mexicans, danes, burundis, etc. Basically discriminate against everyone. But since that won't happen I'm sure there'll be some UAE guys handling it soon. Hopefully they'll hold up their end of the deal.
JohnnyMack
2/21/2006, 10:20 PM
Since port security is such a joke, what's the big deal? It's not like they're going to stop us from inspecting every container like we aren't doing anyway right now.

Yup. We can't even keep guns from going through x-rays at our airports, why should this be a big deal?
KaiserSooner
2/21/2006, 10:23 PM
However, ideally it'd be nice to handle anything regarding our ports or borders through only US companies and exclude everyone, not just arabs, but canadians, mexicans, danes, burundis, etc. .

Luckily, those Burundis are landlocked, so we shouldn't have to worry about any port management takeover or anything like that.

:D
Penguin
2/21/2006, 11:18 PM
Let's sell Boston Logan and JFK to the ragheads, too.
TheHumanAlphabet
2/21/2006, 11:57 PM
Okay, I'm all for capitalism and I am for the best company gets the deal. But I do believe in strategic resources and I think a port would classify. Given that Arabs, re: Islam, re: Fundamental Islam is basically at war with the U.S. and that UAE did have some plane bombers. It would be prudent in my American estimation, that we have control of our own ports and try to reduce our exposure. I am not saying the ports will be bombed if the UAE company gets it, am I'm not saying that we won't get infiltrated with an American company managing it. I'm just saying, why take a chance?
OklahomaTuba
2/21/2006, 11:58 PM
- All we're talking about is a transfer of port operations at six US ports (the toters and lifters NOT the security or control mechanisms) from one foreign multi-national to another.

- UAE is a US ally. They have bent over backwards to help us in the GWOT including allowing basing of US land, air and naval forces.

I think these two points are what I am having a hard time dealing with. While I am against this in principle, these facts are hard to ignore.