|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Time once again to play "Who said this". Here's the quote: "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." Clue - the speaker is a prominent American who had nothing to do with the decision to approve this deal and who did not even know about until after the Bush Administration had approved it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Time once again to play "Who said this". Here's the quote:
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."
Clue - the speaker is a prominent American who had nothing to do with the decision to approve this deal and who did not even know about until after the Bush Administration had approved it.
President Bush said something similar. I found this quote in the news:
"We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America," Bush said Thursday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Time once again to play "Who said this". Here's the quote:
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."
Clue - the speaker is a prominent American who had nothing to do with the decision to approve this deal and who did not even know about until after the Bush Administration had approved it.
So, what point are you trying to make???
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Freudian slip or mere slip of the tongue???
I simply report. You decide.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Freudian slip or mere slip of the tongue???
Semantics. Clearly he means if the deal would adversely affect the security of the US, which there is no indication that it will.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this situation. A company with a very good record for port management all over the world purchases another port management company. Normal business transaction.
The UAE have been allies of ours for a long time, and show no signs that they will not continue to be. The uproar over all this is paranoia and has significantly racist overtones.
Oh, and by the way, these operations have very little to do with port security. That is still a government function, headed by the Coast Guard.
I'm somewhat of the same opinion here, though I would certainly like to learn more about the deal.
One thing I do know is that any change of hands will pose NO impact on how US Customs and the US Coast Guard conducts business and it's almost laughable for anyone to think it would...
People citing "security concerns" are seriously cracking me up; do they actually think that a case of Arab ownership is going to somehow magically drum up a "hole" for terrorists to pursue? Here's a secret; the hole has been there for YEARS and even if the 700 Club was running every one of them, it wouldn't make them a bit safer.
Alienating one of the few relatively strong Arab allies we have in the region isn't the smartest things we could be doing. UAE is one of the most Westernized and advanced countries in the Middle-East, so painting them with the same brush that we paint Iran in terms of doubts and fears is NOT the best way forward.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by ODC:
... all it has to do is just have one person in that organization pull some strings and get the security procedures. "Tell" some radical about this and they'll know how to sneak things into the US.
You ignored my post. The UAE or anybody else, if they wanted to bring contraband into the country, would just bring it in. Why bother buying a freakin' port??? A dozen guys, a boat, a truck or two and bingo, you can bring in almost anything along the vast coastline - no problem. You don't go to a high security area to smuggle something, that's just retarded.
And by the way, this wasn't GWs deal, gleeful as you seemed to pull him into it.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
tour, on the safety and security issues i refer you to my earlier post:
Originally posted by JB1:
-maybe the uae has changed its tune and now is on our side. then again maybe not. we have over a century of proof showing we can trust the brits not to try and kill/harm us. we do not have this with the uae. trust is earned, not given.
-hamas(a terrorist organization) legally took control of palistine. the naawp is a peaceful political offshoot of the kkk. both are prime examples of a wolf in sheep's clothing if there ever was one, which brings us to something an uncle of mine told me.
Last edited by JB1; 02/27/06 05:08 AM.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
