George W. Bush is Insane.......

The greatest living inept president.

Ok, first off, labelling an entire country as a terrorist state because of the act of a few of its citizens is bad. Anyone remember where the Oklahoma City bombers came from? Yeah.

Yes, Kendra, I know you believe that the US is a terrorist nation with a facist, election stealing dictator at the helm even if you can't decide if that person is Bush, Cheney, or Rove.

And second, you guys are forgetting that, despite who owns the companies running these ports, security will still be handled by those ass kicking Sailors of the US Coast Guard.

-Kiamat Dusk
...go Coasties!

This is somewhat worrisome to me if only for the same reasons some in congress have been expressing... (from an above news article)



Highlighted in bold, me too. Actually I'm pretty much positive of it, not just worried. We've reached that point in time where memories have faded.

I'm not saying OOOHHHH MYYY GODDDD THE PRESIDENT IS FCKKINNNNN INSANE!!!!1 But a good healthy "WTF" seems in order.

Bush is insisting this will go through and has threatened to veto a republican controled congress attempts to stop him

he is now alienating himself from both sides

but he is finally unifying th Rs and Ds;

against him

personally, this is one decision I don't nessecarily disagree with Bush on...

We shouldn't be giving US government contracts to any company owned in part or full by a foreign government. There are a few reasons for this:

1--State ownership of companies is anti-competetive. Privately owned companies don't have the resources to compete.

2--Being dependent on small, wealthy oligarchies like the UAE, lessens the support for democracy in the Middle East.

3--Having our ports administered by a company owned by a country in such an unstable region of the world puts these ports at an unnecessary risk of disruption.

In addition to the above, the UAE was one of the few nations to have full diplomatic relations with the Taleban. We shouldn't be giving lucrative, strategic contracts to companies owned by non-democratic states that have a history of supporting political/religious fanaticism.

Same can be said about the U.S.

QFT


.... america needs to realise that their companys have long been just as wrapped up in trade with these now "terrorist" countrys as everyone else has. Hell, most of the guns their fighting against they sold to the other country originally.

Interestingly enough, an individual state can decline renewing the lease on their ports opening up the port to alternative companies taking possession. So no matter how the federal situation ends up, I seriously doubt many states would concede to allowing a company in Dubai to manage their ports.

I think this is an excellent move by the US. It futher shows our strong support for the Monarchy.

Without weighing in on the issue itself, I find it amusing that many of the critics of this are the same people who loudly proclaim that one cannot hold a country or it's people guilty for the acts of a few, that any criticism of any muslim countries because of 9/11 is racist profiling, etc.

Now, slightly more on topic, while I would have prefered we not go down this road to begin with, at this point if we backed out we would do catastrophic damage to our foriegn relations with the UAE, one of the few countries in that area of the world that somewhat likes us.

That's what I've been smelling.

doesnt the US's support of CIA backed proxy wars contitute a support for terrorism? or is it only when its middle east/non us allied states do it?

This is not rocket science. When your country has been attacked by terrorists with ties to a particular country, as is the case with the US (several of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and funding came from that country), it is perfectly reasonable not to want to then allow that country to have anything to do with US port operations. While UAE is currently cooperating in the war on terror, they have previously knowingly harbored and supported terrorists against the West and the country has been a base for funding of terrorist activities.

Why is it so hard to understand that people do not want a state owned company from said country running the operations (any operations) of our ports out of concerns for security?

Considering I think the United States is the single largest terrorist nation in existence, you're asking the wrong lady.

Spoken like a true patriot! Tell us all again about how you support our troops, Kendra! Oh, and don't forget the part where you love our country, that's my favorite!

-Kiamat Dusk
...sarcastic...

yeah kendra

you are supposed to turn your head away when your government commits war crimes, lies to it's people, and shoots holes in the consitution

remember the old phrase

"I was just following ze orders"

big brother is watching out for you

Actually, in your definition, it seems this is what a true patriot is:

All I gotta say is at least this has gotten Republicans and Democrats to agree with each other on something again. Because both parties do not like this deal at all.

wow, u're all so smart, please tell me what books to read so i can think like you guys, and be smrt, i mean smart. ;P

Not my fault that people like you support a rogue radical element that has taken over our Government and turned into a Terrorist Nation.

Why do you hate America?

I've recently learned that there is a statute of some sort requiring a minimum 45 day evaluation on this type of transaction (to a state owned company). This is very probably why both sides of the aisle are up in arms about it. The administration broke the law again.

the UAE isn't a 'terrorist nation' any more than the USA is, in fact in terms of numbers of innocent people killed for a political cause being a definition of terrorism, the USA would be the number one terrorist state in the world, but that's besides the point, the question is why aren't American companies in control of American infrastructure? Answer: because democrats and republicans passed laws to allow business to have free reign first then national security is second, Clinton passed Nafta remember, Bush is just a whore for the multi-national corporations and quite frankly those corporations have everything to gain by NOT allowing any terrorism to interfere with their cash flow, regardless of the amount of idiotic religious bloodthirsty nutcases who want to kill people, corporations don't have a religious adjenda, they exist solely to make money and terrorism gets in the way. What is insane is people like Magnum who are broadbushing the UAE as a 'terrorist nation' when the same definition of terrorist can be applied right back at the USA and gives more fuel for the real terrorists who don't need to bribe a fellow arab to smuggle a bomb in, they can just ship it, almost all those containers are not checked, regardless of who is in charge. Just my 2 cents.

remember that the USA gave 300 Million dollars to the Taleban pre-911 because "we were so proud of them stopping those evil poppy growers" so what's the difference between thw UAE and the USA?

actually the smart money is on the fact we wanted a pipeline, gave them the cash as a bribe or downpayment, they said no and thanks for the cash, we'll buy guns and kill you with it you dumb fucks, so the usa waited for a 'pearl harbor like event' knowing that bin laden was crazy enough to try something, allowed it to happen, then attacked afghanistan, which might sound like a conspiracy theory until you do the math and see that the pipeline was built but virtually nothing else was and we dont give a crap about the poppys anymore.

Sometimes it IS that simple.

Hey great, we can expect the next explosion of devistation to occur in the ports of New York. They don't need air planes now. WOOO!

Way to go people, way to go.