ET Republicans:Why bother fighting the war on terror when you give terriosts the keys

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by mahram, Feb 20, 2006.

Do you agree with President bushes policy of giving port security to foreign Arab cou

  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  2. No

    31 vote(s)
    96.9%
  1. Elite trader republicans explain why are you even bothering fighting the war on terror when you guys give the keys and control to your ports to terriost supporting countries. Why bother? Why bother tapping phones illegally without warrants? All they have todo is go throught their ports that they control. It just boggles the mind. Republicans claim they are safeguarding the country, but they give control to the ports to terriosts, and they refuse to enforce border security. Who cares about nukes in ports when the guy with the turban has a few dollars. or why care about securing borders, when you have wealthly businesses clamouring for cheap labour.
     
  2. do all the republicans agree that Bush made a huge mistake. His unilateral decision to allow this, based on money, and not security .

     
  3. =======
    This is interesting because former Democrat President Jimmy Carter likes the idea also & United A. E. has been a helpful ally & has a good businesss idea of no tax zone.

    However think the republican governors are right that dont want it, and , wrote Senators /President Bush agreeing with the governors, not former president Jimmy Carter .

    Wisdom is the principal thing.

    Mahram you sound like you dont vote republican much;
    :cool: , however think you/us & Republican govs are right not to want it.

    Think there might be enough republicans /democrats against this to over rule Jimmy Carter & any one else.:cool:
     
  4. I am curious as to what mechanism allows the US government get involved in the business delaings of a publically traded British company. I could see the US not granting permission for the UAE company to work in the US port system but do not see how they can prevent the sale to the UAE from the British company?
     
  5. Im not anti republican. In fact i agree with most of the business side issues that republicans support. But I disagree with alot of bush's foreign policies and constitutional policies. My thing is that i want to challenge republicans who are sitting on the sidelines and who dont want to offend the most popular guy in the club, stand up and challenge the president on issues. It just boggles the mind that when everybody is telling bush that this deal is wrong from both sides, he wont back down, b/c of pride and b/c he doesnt want to offend the muslim population. He was hampering about the chinese threat owning a second rate oil company, but he is gung ho on foreign nation, that is pragmatic on terriosm taking over key ports. Can you imagine the political fallout if god forbids something did happen in those port?

     
  6. well the reason is that those ports operate and do business in the united states. Regardless of the owners, they are under american jurisdiction. It was like a few years ago when the EU intervened between two US companies merging, but they had a say b/c honeywell did alot of business in the EU. Thats why they had the right.

     
  7. All you need to know is that Jimmy Carter supports it and you know it's a BAD BAD idea.
     
  8. Ricter

    Ricter


    "A Dubai Ports World spokesman said Monday that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

    "We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.

    A port security expert said fears that the agreement would reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" against Arabs and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

    "This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping."
     
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    Interesting absolute. I'm considering the "what if" scenario where a Jimmy Carter would say, "listen to Sputdr, he's got a fine mind."
     
  10. I wouldnt be so ethusiatic if jimmy carter was supporting this. He was to afraid to indict nixon.

     
    #10     Feb 21, 2006