OT Something fishy going on

"I didn't hear any complaints when the British owned the ports" says
President Bush.
"How can we allow one and not the other?"

Simple. We're at war.
Apparently 2000 US dead service men and women isn't enough evidence that we
are at war.

We should not be worrying about foreigner's feelings when there's plenty of
folks right here in America terror stricken by the idea.

Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge knowing it was maintained
by the UAE?

According to reports, the same UAE company maintains our war ships when they
come to port in the mideast. Talking about stupid outsourcing. Just
because they haven't blown us out of the water yet that doesn't mean they
won't.

Oh, and yes Scott, things are going great in Iraq.
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/22/iraq.main/index.html[/url]


We may already have a Civil War there.



"mark_digital©" <976XXX@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6L-dnTJR3NjO6WHe4p2dnA@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "I didn't hear any complaints when the British owned the ports" says
> President Bush.
> "How can we allow one and not the other?"
>
> Simple. We're at war.
> Apparently 2000 US dead service men and women isn't enough evidence that
> we are at war.
>
> We should not be worrying about foreigner's feelings when there's plenty
> of folks right here in America terror stricken by the idea.
>
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge knowing it was maintained
> by the UAE?
>[/color]

In article <x9%Kf.2283$5M6.1833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
[email]begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> We may already have a Civil War there.
>[/color]
How fucked is that country now?
And which sect of Islam will the US and the UK decide to defend against
the other sect of Islam?

It is just like Catholic Christians fighting Protestant Christians.
Which side do you take in that if you are a Jew or a Budhist?
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. [url]http://smallr.com/rz[/url]
Homepage: [url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]

"mark_digital©" <976XXX@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6L-dnTJR3NjO6WHe4p2dnA@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "I didn't hear any complaints when the British owned the ports" says
> President Bush.
> "How can we allow one and not the other?"
>
> Simple. We're at war.
> Apparently 2000 US dead service men and women isn't enough evidence that
> we are at war.
>
> We should not be worrying about foreigner's feelings when there's plenty
> of folks right here in America terror stricken by the idea.
>
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge knowing it was maintained
> by the UAE?
>[/color]

Security is still maintained by the same people as before, UAE has no
control over security or customs. None. So it doesn't matter. Plus, UAE is
an ally in this war. I mean, how can you have it both ways. You either trust
out allies or you dont. No middle ground - I am so surprised the democrats
are against this. Makes them sound like bigots - exactly what the democrats
try to call republicans. Unbelievable!

First off port security is almost non existent, that's been a major
criticism of Homeland security. Second the UAE is as
much an ally against terrorism as Columbia is an ally against
the war on drugs. It's only the ruling royals who are "allies",
certainly not the people of these countries, these are hardly trust
worthy
allies. What I find suprising is how this administration is selling out
this
country and people still swallow the koolaide, though to their credit,
not
many are this time. I'm waiting for the reports to
start trickling as to who the Bush associates are that have a lot of
money riding on this deal.

"mark_digital©" <976XXX@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6L-dnTJR3NjO6WHe4p2dnA@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "I didn't hear any complaints when the British owned the ports" says
> President Bush.
> "How can we allow one and not the other?"
>
> Simple. We're at war.
> Apparently 2000 US dead service men and women isn't enough evidence that
> we are at war.
>
> We should not be worrying about foreigner's feelings when there's plenty
> of folks right here in America terror stricken by the idea.
>
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge knowing it was maintained
> by the UAE?[/color]

Hmmmm...should I be agreeing with you?

I think so...

Big difference between the British and an Arab nation. Prejudice? Maybe.
Common Sense? Definitely.
Hire the Fox to watch the henhouse...

[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140630383.422616.288140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> First off port security is almost non existent, that's been a major
> criticism of Homeland security. Second the UAE is as
> much an ally against terrorism as Columbia is an ally against
> the war on drugs. It's only the ruling royals who are "allies",
> certainly not the people of these countries, these are hardly trust
> worthy
> allies. What I find suprising is how this administration is selling out
> this
> country and people still swallow the koolaide, though to their credit,
> not
> many are this time. I'm waiting for the reports to
> start trickling as to who the Bush associates are that have a lot of
> money riding on this deal.
>[/color]

As a pragmatist, ask yourself this, who is more anti-terrorism, Bush or
Congress?

I suspect that the reality is probably something simple like the seller gave
to Bush rather than the Dems, and they're just trying to f' him up.

It gets doubly suspicious when there are about 12 reasons thrown around-
security, US jobs, commerce, etc.


First of all, the ownership usually has little to do with the jobs. Its not
like the UAE is going to start shipping Arabs over here to work in New York
or New Orleans. I mean, the current contract is with a U.K. firm, not a
U.S. firm it looks like. Its not like all the dockworkers are Brits, right.


Second, the company buying the business is a subsidiary. Who knows how much
direct interest there is from the government of the UAE, I'm sure they have
lots of businesses that they invest in. They don't want to screw up their
investment by letting terrorism occur, because then they'd lose their
investment, amongst other things.

I suspect that it doesn't really matter too much. The actual problem (or
not) is that the government is de facto outsourcing security to shipping
companies (which I tend to believe do a more efficient better job than the
government ever does- remember, the terrorist chose to hijack planes- the
path of least resistance for them. And most of the fuck ups occurred at
government agencies - FAA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Immigration- and the final
fuck up was the low-paud, untrained security screeners- but did they really
fuck up- the things that were allowed on board (box cutters) were allowed
under federal regulations.

The Congress keeps throwing around statistics like 95% of containers and
packages aren't inspected, but again, I suspect that 95% of packages and
containers are from Sony, Panasonic, Hyundai, BMW, UPS, FedX, and a bunch of
other companies that are trustworthy and have been shipping shit here for
decades. I'm sure that the packages that are inspected are from new
companies, or questionable regions, etc.

The hidden agenda of the Democrats (I think) is to gin up public support for
100% package and container inspection which would undoubtedly done by
government unionized employees, like the TSA or customs. So they are trying
to generate tens of thousands of new government jobs as a sop to the union
boys, and hide the new tax by tacking it onto shipping charges. It would be
very elegant for them.

There are plenty of rich guys in the UAE who are apolitical and not Muslim
zealots. They just want to make money.

Don't be surprised if the talking points quickly segue to the whole issue
of 100% inspection of freight. How can the Republicans argue against 100%
inspection of freight if they want to be strong on national defense? The
only possible argument is that its too expensive, and then they look like
they're discounting the value of American lives.

The Democrats are very clever at teeing these things up politically. Their
immediate response will be that as Americans, we won't have to pay for it,
we'll just tax those dam foreigners sending stuff here and stealing jobs.
But of course, intelligent people know that the amount just gets tacked onto
what we pay.

I'm very skeptical that they will stop driving this issue if Bush
capitulates. And if Bush capitulates, it just makes his administration look
confused and stupid for allowing it in the first place.

None of the talking heads is discussing the facts or information regarding
this particular company, and of course the administration can't reveal what
secret research it did before approving the contract.

So throw historical facts out there and let the American public get
spooked. People will figure, why take the chance, fuck em. Why outsource a
key risk area? (Well, now we know it was outsourced already).

I really think this is the unions behind it.

I think if an enterprising reporter checked the facts, you'd find out that
the UAE company outbid a union-friendly American firm, and the union leaders
put the politicians to work to knock the UAE firm out, so that they will get
the deal at a lower price by default.

Lets see what happens to the business after they shit-can the UAE- who ends
up with it, and what the price is, whether it's a union shop, etc. That
will be the best clue.

This is all about business, and has very little to do with security. That's
my opinion.

I find it hard to believe that we can't find US owned companies that
can provide as good if not better service to our ports.

Didn't someone give Long Beach to the Chinese to manage? Should be a
stink about that too if true.

Sorry Bushy! Not this time.

Ron

"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11vpallpnodlr54@news.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140630383.422616.288140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> First off port security is almost non existent, that's been a major
>> criticism of Homeland security. Second the UAE is as
>> much an ally against terrorism as Columbia is an ally against
>> the war on drugs. It's only the ruling royals who are "allies",
>> certainly not the people of these countries, these are hardly trust
>> worthy
>> allies. What I find suprising is how this administration is selling out
>> this
>> country and people still swallow the koolaide, though to their credit,
>> not
>> many are this time. I'm waiting for the reports to
>> start trickling as to who the Bush associates are that have a lot of
>> money riding on this deal.
>>[/color]
>
> As a pragmatist, ask yourself this, who is more anti-terrorism, Bush or
> Congress?[/color]

Stupid question. Bush is a person. Congress is a bunch of people.
[color=blue]
>
> I suspect that the reality is probably something simple like the seller
> gave to Bush rather than the Dems, and they're just trying to f' him up.[/color]

Opposition is bi-partison. I guess you don't read newspapers.
[color=blue]
>
> It gets doubly suspicious when there are about 12 reasons thrown around-
> security, US jobs, commerce, etc.
>
>
> First of all, the ownership usually has little to do with the jobs. Its
> not like the UAE is going to start shipping Arabs over here to work in New
> York or New Orleans. I mean, the current contract is with a U.K. firm,
> not a U.S. firm it looks like. Its not like all the dockworkers are
> Brits, right.[/color]

But who does the security checks before hiring employees?

[color=blue]
>
>
> Second, the company buying the business is a subsidiary. Who knows how
> much direct interest there is from the government of the UAE, I'm sure
> they have lots of businesses that they invest in. They don't want to
> screw up their investment by letting terrorism occur, because then they'd
> lose their investment, amongst other things.[/color]

Based on that analysis, we should out source our weapon programs to them.
[color=blue]
>
> I suspect that it doesn't really matter too much. The actual problem (or
> not) is that the government is de facto outsourcing security to shipping
> companies (which I tend to believe do a more efficient better job than the
> government ever does- remember, the terrorist chose to hijack planes- the
> path of least resistance for them. And most of the fuck ups occurred at
> government agencies - FAA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Immigration- and the final
> fuck up was the low-paud, untrained security screeners- but did they
> really fuck up- the things that were allowed on board (box cutters) were
> allowed under federal regulations.
>[/color]

But now Bush has fixed everything... hasn't he?
[color=blue]
> The Congress keeps throwing around statistics like 95% of containers and
> packages aren't inspected, but again, I suspect that 95% of packages and
> containers are from Sony, Panasonic, Hyundai, BMW, UPS, FedX, and a bunch
> of other companies that are trustworthy and have been shipping shit here
> for decades. I'm sure that the packages that are inspected are from new
> companies, or questionable regions, etc.
>[/color]

Does fedex know what's in that box I just shipped?
[color=blue]
> The hidden agenda of the Democrats (I think) is to gin up public support
> for 100% package and container inspection which would undoubtedly done by
> government unionized employees, like the TSA or customs. So they are
> trying to generate tens of thousands of new government jobs as a sop to
> the union boys, and hide the new tax by tacking it onto shipping charges.
> It would be very elegant for them.[/color]

Someone should be looking in those containers.
[color=blue]
>
> There are plenty of rich guys in the UAE who are apolitical and not Muslim
> zealots. They just want to make money.[/color]

Too bad they don't wear signs on their backs so we can tell who the good
guys are.
[color=blue]
>
> Don't be surprised if the talking points quickly segue to the whole issue
> of 100% inspection of freight. How can the Republicans argue against 100%
> inspection of freight if they want to be strong on national defense? The
> only possible argument is that its too expensive, and then they look like
> they're discounting the value of American lives.[/color]

Which would be true.
[color=blue]
>
> The Democrats are very clever at teeing these things up politically.
> Their immediate response will be that as Americans, we won't have to pay
> for it, we'll just tax those dam foreigners sending stuff here and
> stealing jobs. But of course, intelligent people know that the amount just
> gets tacked onto what we pay.[/color]

So you are willing to short change defense to save a buck at Walmart.
[color=blue]
>
> I'm very skeptical that they will stop driving this issue if Bush
> capitulates. And if Bush capitulates, it just makes his administration
> look confused and stupid for allowing it in the first place.[/color]

They are confused and stupid.
[color=blue]
>
> None of the talking heads is discussing the facts or information regarding
> this particular company, and of course the administration can't reveal
> what secret research it did before approving the contract.
>
> So throw historical facts out there and let the American public get
> spooked. People will figure, why take the chance, fuck em. Why outsource
> a key risk area? (Well, now we know it was outsourced already).
>
> I really think this is the unions behind it.
>[/color]
Probably the unions, the mafia and Democrats working together with a few
high level Republicans in the Congress. LOL

[color=blue]
> I think if an enterprising reporter checked the facts, you'd find out that
> the UAE company outbid a union-friendly American firm, and the union
> leaders put the politicians to work to knock the UAE firm out, so that
> they will get the deal at a lower price by default.[/color]

But you don't trust the liberal media so that would probably be untrue. LOL
[color=blue]
>
> Lets see what happens to the business after they shit-can the UAE- who
> ends up with it, and what the price is, whether it's a union shop, etc.
> That will be the best clue.
>
> This is all about business, and has very little to do with security.
> That's my opinion.
>[/color]

And Bush's too, apparently.

"ron" <really [email]good@serviceu.com[/email]> wrote in message
news:IV1Lf.36484$F_3.26754@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
>I find it hard to believe that we can't find US owned companies that can
>provide as good if not better service to our ports.
>
> Didn't someone give Long Beach to the Chinese to manage? Should be a
> stink about that too if true.
>
> Sorry Bushy! Not this time.
>
> Ron[/color]

Sorry, Ron, US Companies provide ALL the services TO the ports.

The ports THEMSELVES are being SOLD to the UAE!!!!

Yes the Chinese are running a bunch of our ports. So far no Chinese
terrorist have attacked the US. Plus the Chinese own a ton of our debt.
They seem satisified dictating to their own people for now. Although things
could flare up with them again over the other China at any time.


"ron" <really [email]good@serviceu.com[/email]> wrote in message
news:IV1Lf.36484$F_3.26754@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
>I find it hard to believe that we can't find US owned companies that can
>provide as good if not better service to our ports.
>
> Didn't someone give Long Beach to the Chinese to manage? Should be a
> stink about that too if true.
>
> Sorry Bushy! Not this time.
>
> Ron[/color]

Art - your responses lacked depth.

"ron" <really [email]good@serviceu.com[/email]> wrote in message
news:IV1Lf.36484$F_3.26754@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
>I find it hard to believe that we can't find US owned companies that can
>provide as good if not better service to our ports.
>
> Didn't someone give Long Beach to the Chinese to manage? Should be a
> stink about that too if true.
>
> Sorry Bushy! Not this time.
>
> Ron[/color]

No U.S. profitable company wants to deal with American unions and government
entities like customs?

If I understood it right, the British company P & O is being bought
out by the front for the government of Dubai. P & O MANAGED the ports
they did not own them as far as I know. Hopefully this is the case.
Be interesting to know for sure.

At last got us all talking about similar thing in similar vein.

Ron

In article <6L-dnTJR3NjO6WHe4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"mark_digital©" <976XXX@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "I didn't hear any complaints when the British owned the ports" says
> President Bush.
> "How can we allow one and not the other?"
>
> Simple. We're at war.
> Apparently 2000 US dead service men and women isn't enough evidence that we
> are at war.
>
> We should not be worrying about foreigner's feelings when there's plenty of
> folks right here in America terror stricken by the idea.
>
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge knowing it was maintained
> by the UAE?[/color]

Yes.

We're not at war with the U.A.E. We are at war with terrorists.
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore