Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Polpolion on March 09, 2006, 05:43:19 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11741617/
yay!
good ol' UAE.
well, not really.
-
That'll teach people to try to operate a business in the US
Edit- Yay for 2000 posts
-
This whole contraversy is explicitly anti-Arab. This sends the message to everyone that they shouldn't bother trying to be America's friends. America has no friends.
-
Yay, yet another one playing the race card. Doesn't suprise me actually.
America was not totally informed about this deal, and America Said NO.
Actually, it's more like: Who? Why? Details Please? No details? NO.
-
Yay, yet another one playing the race card. Doesn't suprise me actually.
America was not totally informed about this deal, and America Said NO.
Actually, it's more like: Who? Why? Details Please? No details? NO.
Look at it this way: The politicians are saying that we should only let American companies run our ports. Now, those 6 ports were not run by an American company, they were run by a British company. So clearly, it is ok for foreigners to run American terminals, as long as they are not Arab.
Also some people were complaining about the Dubai port company being an SOE (state owned enterprise). But, there is a terminal in Long Beach, California that is operated by China Shipping. China Shipping is an SOE, that is owned and operated by the Chinese government. So it is ok for a company owned by a communist government to operate in America, but it isn't for a company owned by a country that is supposed to be America's ally?
-
Kosh is right. We're not concerned when British or Canadian companies handle our military and security needs. If instead of UAE, it was Belgium, there'd be no mention of it in the news. America - full of bigots.
-
I'll admit, I was surprised this fell through. Seemed perfectly O.K. to me.
-
Kosh is right. We're not concerned when British or Canadian companies handle our military and security needs. If instead of UAE, it was Belgium, there'd be no mention of it in the news. America - full of bigots.
Why Belgium per se. Or did you just choose a random country?
-
Why Belgium per se. Or did you just choose a random country?
Random european nation.
-
Racism prevails...
Yea... :|
-
America - full of bigots.
I'M not a bigot. More like a PACIFIST. Well, not really.
And we were so worried about having an arab country control it because the terrorists generaly DO seem to come from around there. I think thats why we were so worried.
Man, polititions are stupid. Ecspecially ours. (America's)
So am I, with my stupid spelling errors.
-
America - full of bigots.
I'M not a bigot. More like a PACIFIST. Well, not really.
And we were so worried about having an arab country control it because the terrorists generaly DO seem to come from around there. I think thats why we were so worried.
Man, polititions are stupid. Ecspecially ours. (America's)
So am I, with my stupid spelling errors.
keep proving Yourself wrong :p
the shoe bomber was British. The Oklahoma city bomber was American.
-
The Shoe Bomber looked like the kind of guy who'd bug you at train stations for money.
-
I don't trust the UAE and I don't want them running any of our ports. If that makes me a bigot then that's all fine and dandy.
-
I'm not a bigot and I don't want the UAE controlling our ports. Why? Because a lot of people in Arab countries want to kill us, and an Arab-run company is easier for arabs to get into than, say, an [insert random european country here] company.
A lot of people from the middle east want to kill us; that's a fact.
It would be easier for those people to get into sensitive areas if the UAE, a middle eastern company, were in control of our ports. That's a fact.
-
America - full of bigots.
I'M not a bigot. More like a PACIFIST. Well, not really.
And we were so worried about having an arab country control it because the terrorists generaly DO seem to come from around there. I think thats why we were so worried.
Man, polititions are stupid. Ecspecially ours. (America's)
So am I, with my stupid spelling errors.
keep proving Yourself wrong :p
the shoe bomber was British. The Oklahoma city bomber was American.
crap. what part did I prove wrong? the part about our polititions? my spelling? or was it the arab countrys?
man i speak too much.
-
Maybe you should follow your tag's advice. By the way, it's "politicians" and "countries". :p
-
Heh, Raa was referring to the fact that Terrorists have already been proved to come from countries that are already controlling some ports in the US. ;)
Anyway, stop picking on him :p
-
One big difference here between the Arabs and the English running those ports. The UK is one of America's allies, and with the media spinning everything towards the left's viewpoints, we don't truly know where Dubai stands! Dubai funds Hamas, and supports a boycott of Israel, if you want to play the Racism card. They're just as bad in this situation, if you believe that the US wants to be bigoted and push out foreign interests.
When noone really knows about the details of the situation, and a 45-day evaluation time period had been established, I would have agreed to let them spill the details about the whole thing. But since there wasnt any real disclosure about what's going on with SIX major access points to the United States, I can understand why a lot of politicians say NO to DPWorld.
It's OUR country, being an American myself, Why is it so bad for us to run our own ports? What's so wrong with that? Where does it say in our Constitution that we MUST let foreigners run parts of our country? NOWHERE. Nowhere I can see. (I can see someone twisting some statement fromt the Constitution now to refute my claim) Why is it so bad to uphold our OWN country by keeping the ports in American hands? Other countries, especially Arab countries feel it's RIGHT to kill people to uphold thier way of life and thier state and deemed acceptable by thier God.
-
America is far from an exception to that rule.
However, at the end of the day, I do understand the concern. The fact is that, even if the company running the ports are doing so with the very best of intentions, that doesn't mean that every single one of their employees feel the same way.
There is a danger, however, and I've seen it rising here, of the problem being only because they are from Middle Eastern countries. I don't actually hold that those countries are 'full of people that want to kill you'. But theres no doubt whatsoever that there are people in those countries who would take advantage of the situation to do exactly that, probably a higher percentage than would be in, say, the UK or US.
But will doing it this way make the situation and politics between the West and the Middle East better or worse, and should that even be a factor in the decision? I honestly could not say, someone has to trust first, but trust opens up the possibility of it being betrayed, it's a hard bridge to walk across. I suspect possibly, at least at first, demanding the right to screen all employees working in the ports and do random checks of imported goods etc, which already take place, even in US run ports, would have been a better compromise, but there is so much belligerence on both sides, that I really couldn't say.
-
One big difference here between the Arabs and the English running those ports. The UK is one of America's allies, and with the media spinning everything towards the left's viewpoints, we don't truly know where Dubai stands! Dubai funds Hamas, and supports a boycott of Israel, if you want to play the Racism card. They're just as bad in this situation, if you believe that the US wants to be bigoted and push out foreign interests.
Riiight 'spinning it towards the left.' So what would the good right-wing media perspective be?
"Dubai funds Hamas which we're against for being a terrorist organization. But Dubai is our great ally against terror!!!!1111oneoneone"
Now your little spiel might have a been a bit more valid minus yet again screaming about the "liberal media."
Investigative reporting is counter Regan revolutionary.
The Regan is mother. The Regan is father.
Trust the Regan.
-
with the media spinning everything towards the left's viewpoints, we don't truly know where Dubai stands! Dubai funds Hamas, and supports a boycott of Israel, if you want to play the Racism card. They're just as bad in this situation, if you believe that the US wants to be bigoted and push out foreign interests.
Quite frankly, I tend to side against Isreal myself. There's really little justification for kicking palestinians off their land to create an artificial jewish state. Any other place in the world, when a peoples land was conquerred, their nation was lost. It happened over and over. Why should Israel have been any different? It fell long ago. And doing what Britain and the US did to recreate it only served to create hostility in the region.
-
This whole mess is ****ing embarrising. The democrats AND REPUBLICANS were playing politics. Some members of the GOP want to distance themselves from Bush. The Democrats want to beat Bush on the security issue, and this was their chance. But I disagree with Kosh (no suprise there), I don't think this is ANTI-ARAB. Although I am sure that there is some distrust because of terrorism and Bin Laden. Honestly though, these are business men and it is not in their best interest to smuggle in terrorists or WMDs or whatever. It honestly wouldn't make any sense. That doesn't mean that we should completely trust say the Saudi Royal Family for instance. The best thing Bush should do is exert his power and veto the block. It is the best thing he could do. People might actually start to respect him a little again.
Now in regaurds to funding Hamas, honestly can you blame them? Donate money to the PLA and it will be used for something other that its propper use. Give money to Hamas and it goes to where its supposed to, to the dirt poor palestinians. Yes, it might get use for terrorism, but honestly which is more evil, Hamas, which plans terrorism and helps the poor or the PLA, that practically plot to keep the palestinians poor? I am not anti israel, just trying to be a realist.
-
People might actually start to respect him a little again.
Bush used to be respected? :eek2:
Maybe you should follow your tag's advice. By the way, it's "politicians" and "countries". :p
If I didn't think before I post, well, look at it this way: Imagine a forum with as many posts in it as you can imagine. now imagine a forum with 10000000000 times even MORE posts in it. If I didn't think before I posted, This forum would have even more posts in it than THAT!!! Filled with horrible misspellings too!!! (along with some rather tasteless jokes too)
-
Nah, you'd be banned long before then.
-
:lol:
Probably. It's a good thing that I'm not that dumb and that my ego isn't that huge. Otherwise I'd be gone LONG time ago. Still, one dose get tired of making a laughing stock of one's self.
:sigh:
-
Raa, Sizzler stop acting like pathetic children.
-
Raa, Sizzler stop acting like pathetic children.
Excuse me? :wtf:
-
This whole mess is ****ing embarrising. The democrats AND REPUBLICANS were playing politics. Some members of the GOP want to distance themselves from Bush. The Democrats want to beat Bush on the security issue, and this was their chance.
So far, I'm not impressed with either political party. Both are showing a major lack of leadership or organization, and unless they can get their act together and start supporting their own leaders or fellow politicians, than we will be in for even rougher times in Washington.
-
One big difference here between the Arabs and the English running those ports. The UK is one of America's allies, and with the media spinning everything towards the left's viewpoints, we don't truly know where Dubai stands! Dubai funds Hamas, and supports a boycott of Israel, if you want to play the Racism card. They're just as bad in this situation, if you believe that the US wants to be bigoted and push out foreign interests.
Riiight 'spinning it towards the left.' So what would the good right-wing media perspective be?
"Dubai funds Hamas which we're against for being a terrorist organization. But Dubai is our great ally against terror!!!!1111oneoneone"
Now your little spiel might have a been a bit more valid minus yet again screaming about the "liberal media."
Investigative reporting is counter Regan revolutionary.
The Regan is mother. The Regan is father.
Trust the Regan.
If you're thinking I believe in "Fair and Balanced" you're so wrong. I'd prefer total neutral news reporting before it gets spun off to any political direction. How does my arguement become invalid by saying reports were spun off to the left? I hear one thing stated on CNN that is stated in a completely different way on FNC, which is different from the programs I hear on our local News Radio 590&940! Nobody's been finding out what's REALLY behind this deal, instead, people are playing politics as usual, and making this whole thing turn out to be a mess! If we dont' know exactly where Dubai stands, at least the company DPWorld, how in the hell are we going to trust them to operate our ports? And if the media IN GENERAL cannot report consistently, that's even more reason to distrust this deal before we hear an official announcement from the company, or a report from the 45 day delay process. Whelp, it's over now, so there's not much more that I can say except for this. Ever heard of the old quote, "better safe than sorry"?
It applies HERE.
-
And, by the way, no fourm could really hold thesizzler at his worst. People would be stuck downloading his signature, terabytes and terabytes of dashes.
:blah:
-
It's OUR country, being an American myself, Why is it so bad for us to run our own ports? What's so wrong with that?
America wasn't running those ports in the first place, unless you count the UK as the 51st state. That is the point you seem to be missing.
One big difference here between the Arabs and the English running those ports. The UK is one of America's allies, and with the media spinning everything towards the left's viewpoints
Blaming the media for reporting the truth is not going to change the fact that the UAE is also America's ally. The UAE bends over backward to accomodate American interests in the region (much like Saudia Arabia), and what do they get for it? Nothing.
But since there wasnt any real disclosure about what's going on with SIX major access points to the United States, I can understand why a lot of politicians say NO to DPWorld.
They are saying no because it is an election year. Seems pretty simple to me. Besides, it was just one foreign company buying another foreign company. It was business, and the American government is trying to block a deal between two companies in which they really have no jurisdiction over it in the first place.
-
And, by the way, no fourm could really hold thesizzler at his worst. People would be stuck downloading his signature, terabytes and terabytes of dashes.
:blah:
you're lucky you guys have a 2000 character limit. even though I only used 1000. including the move command
And I'd get bored before I could even make 10mbs of dashes, so you would be lucky. Anyway, I think I'll go back to the "I'm annoying" sig.
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article351127.ece
-
The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, said it was looking to move one-tenth of its dollar reserves into euros, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the US move as "discrimination
Told you it is viewed as discrimination. As I explained earlier, if the chinese can have a port in LA, why can't Dubai?
-
Being viewed as discrimination and being racist are different things.
-
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c8f7de22-b91c-11da-b57d-0000779e2340.html
****!
-
The problem for the US is that in order to keep the dollar from sinking/crashing, it needs about $2 billion every day in foreign investment. But, with UNOCAL, Portsworld, and now this, people might not be so willing to invest their money in America anymore. Why bother holding dollars if you can't use them to buy anything of value?
-
I really want to blugeon all the senators on Crapitol Hill.