BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Port Problems

Up until recently, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) has run six of our ports here in America, now, they have been bought out by Dubai, a United Arab Emirates (UAE) owned company. This, has stirred up some controversy where both the Democrats and the Republicans are split. Now, I have to decide who to trust. Is it Hillary Clinton who is against the transaction, or is it Jimmy Carter who is for the transaction. It's a political scrambled egg really. At this point, the only way I can think clearly is if I put politics behind me and look at whats best for the country. I could hate Hillary Clinton on everything, but if she's right once, I can't oppose her because she's wrong every other time, same with Jimmy Carter. So instead of listening to to the staunch Republicans who always agree with the president, I had to step back and take a close look at what's going on. I've looked at who the UAE is, what they will be in charge of and all the things that involve the transaction, not the politics. After researching, and looking at it both ways, I've made my decision, this can't go through.

Before I can make my case though, I first must describe what's going on in detail. First I'll talk about what the UAE will be in charge of. Since the story broke, the majority of people, and even political pundits have misunderstood what is really going on, and if you are one of those people, then sit tight and I'll get the truth out to you. First off, we have six ports that up until recently have been controlled by P&O, a British company, those ports got bought out by a company called Dubai, a company owned by the UAE (we'll get to who they are in a bit). At this point I want you to let go what you know from this point on because it's probably wrong, probably you are thinking that Dubai is literally taking over the port and there will be no Americans in sight. That's not what's happening. You will find Arabs working in the ports if this transaction goes through but they won't be doing things like checking bags, watching cameras, or being security guards. What they will be doing is basically grunt work. They'll be doing things like moving cargo, checking the ships fuel, and port maintenance. It doesn't sound like too much, and this is as far as the people who are for the transaction look. But if you give me another paragraph or two, I'll explain why this really is a bad idea.

The people who are for this transaction are calling people like me racist because they are under the impression that I don't want the UAE to do this only because they are Arabs. This is not true. Sure they are Arabs, but they have connections with terrorists. My opinion wouldn't change if PETA bought out P&O (just for an example, not that they would). PETA is not a race based group, so why would I be against this, because they fund places like ELF who are terrorist organizations. The same is with UAE, they have funded terrorists, we can't trust them. Lets give a few bullet points here.

Some of the UAE's financial institutions laundered the money for the September 11 terrorists

Many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE.

It's a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, a vital partner in the War on Terror since the 2001

When the international community is attempting to bring Iran's nuclear abilities to a halt, the United Arab Emirates are talking about expanded trade opportunities with Iran

A country that still sees the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan

Fails to recognize Israel as a sovereign state

As you can see, the UAE is a pro-terrorist company, simple as that. I don't want these people out because they are Arabs, I could care less what their race is, I want them out because they are not only terrorist sympathizers, but terrorist helpers.

I think I did a good job explaining who the UAE is, but now people will still say "but what can they do, they aren't in charge of security," You're right. I'm not worried about bombs or terrorists getting smuggled through a ships cargo, that could never happen even with the UAE in charge. I'm worried about something else. If the transaction goes through, UAE guys will be inside the ports working. If a terrorist wants to bomb the port, all he has to to is wave an ID card and he's in. Sure the people will need background checks to get the job, but that doesn't mean Al-Qaeda can't send a clean guy over for the job, or even a person with a phoney ID. It's very possible. What could happen is one of these terrorists could get a job here, literally put a bomb in their lunchbox on the way to work, and nobody would know. He could easily blow up the ports. Why would blowing up these ports be a big deal? Not too many people would die, but our economy would crash if we couldn't import or export as much. It would be an economic 9/11. Call me a fearmonger, but the chances are very real. This could happen if we go through with the transaction.

I've explained the story and given the problems with it, and our own president, who has way more information on this than me, wants to go through with the transaction. In fact he said he will veto any legislation to stop this transaction. Is he out of his mind!? The first time Bush uses a veto he's going to use it to stop this, and not a pork-filled, money consuming, worthless program? He's crazy! There is absolutely no way I can support this president if he is going to stick with this position. In fact, if he does try to veto any bills trying to stop this transaction, I'll call for his impeachment on the grounds of treason. Sound a little harsh? Good. Like I said earliar, I have to look out for what's best for this country, and if that means opposing a Republican who wants to do something that could hurt our country, then I'll do it.

18 Comments:

  • At 22/2/06 3:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Now, I have to decide who to trust. Is it Hillary Clinton who is against the transaction, or is it Jimmy Carter who is for the transaction.

    From CNN.com Transcripts The Situation Room:

    BLITZER: Are you concerned at one of our top stories today about this Dubai-based company taking control of security at six major ports here in the United States?

    CARTER: Well, I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world. I'm not knocking the ones in the United States, of course. My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.

    Obviously, the Homeland Security would have to be involved directly with, and in a partnership with, the Dubai people as they clear folks to work in their ports, particularly in sensitive areas. So the overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists. I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat. (2/20/2006)

    While I think Mr. Carter is putting WAY to much faith in the president to do what's right for the American people, I don't see anywhere that he specifically says he is "for" the transaction.

    You are against it, which is no surprise -- it's the position I would expect someone bigoted against Muslims to take. I haven't made up my mind, because I don't know alot about the situation. I just skimmed what you wrote -- and I don't have any interest in reading it carefully... since I think I can safely assume that whatever you said it is extremely biased and racist.

    However since bush seems to be so strongly in favor of the transaction, I think there must be something fishy going on. I listen to the Al Franken show every day (via the streaming audio link on their webpage) -- I was out of the room at the time, but I caught the tail end of something that sounded interesting... Apparently some people in the administration have a financial interest in seeing the transaction go through (not surprising). I'll have to tune in for the rebroadcast tonight.

     
  • At 22/2/06 4:22 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I haven't made up my mind, because I don't know alot about the situation. I just skimmed what you wrote"

    You would know all about the situation if you actually DID read my entire post, not only that but you'd know that I am not hateful towards Muslims and I'm on a side you should agree with me on, but even when we agree you have to insult me. In fact, you could care less about my blog, or my opinion (even if it does agree with you) because you aren't here to read my blog, you are here to insult me. I'm not going to deal wiith it anymore, you're banned. Any further posts by you will be deleted.

     
  • At 22/2/06 8:08 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    OK, fine. I apologize. I read the rest of your post, and there isn't anything overtly racist (although I did find the PETA slam offensive). I just got a little fed up after DarkSaturos called my last post on the other thread a "terrorist sob story". The article I posted CLEARLY stated that the guy was innocent. Even the military said so!

    Anyway, having me around is good for you, isn't it? Your articles wouldn't have nearly as many replies if it weren't for me (I have considered leaving for this reason). Whatever you decide to do is fine with me.

    BTW why are you right wingers against EVERY organization that wants to protect rights?? The ACLU protecting the rights of humans or PETA protecting the rights of animals. I don't get it. You probably oppose the NAACP (given your stance on affirmative action). What about organizations like the Sierra Club who's goal is to protect our environment?

    Here's the information I promised earlier concerning who stands to profit from this deal:

    Snow & Sanborn Port connection.
    Treasury Secretary John Snow chairs the "Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States" (CFIUS) which made the decision for the administration (regarding the port transaction).

    John Snow was formerly CEO of CSX, which -- among other things -- owned CSX/Sea-Land. A former director for CSX/Sea-Land, David Sanborn, left and became a director for Dubai Ports International. He was responsible for South American operations when CSX sold its port operations in Sout America to Dubai Ports in 2004.

    Former Snow employee Sanborn left his gig at Dubai Ports two weeks ago to accept the job as Assisstant Secretary of Transportation -- Maritime Administration. Introduced to the Senate, by the way, by his good buddy, Senator George Allen.

    Then just two-weeks hence, this decision is made which will undoubtedly enrich all current stockholders in CSX/Sea-Land and Dubai Ports. (from The Daily Kos, 2/20/2006)

    Comment by Halcyon: It's always about the cronies' enrichment. It should be painfully obvious to us all that the United States is viewed by our corporate crony rulers as merely a teat. The citizens are the busy bees and mammary cells producing the milk and honey. "National Security" is just another ruse to funnel money to the cronies. "Performance" is optional.

     
  • At 22/2/06 8:14 PM, Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said…

    My main contention with the port sale is the ability of possible terrorist infiltartors working through the UAE to gain access to port security information posing as management in the UAE company. This is not racial profiling but a fact that with Arab management of port operations an Arab terrorist could pass security info to a sleeper cell or over seas.

    Ken

     
  • At 22/2/06 10:10 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I'm wondering if you could please give evidence for your "bullet points," as I have been watching a lot of the news coverage and never once heard anything about this company and its link to terrorism. Well, minus the fact that it's an Arab company, but as we ALL know, the majority of Arabs are NOT terrorists. I'm not taking a stance on the issue, I'd just like some back-up information, here.

     
  • At 23/2/06 4:14 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Apparently Rush is for the deal. Take a look at what he had to say recently --

    Rush Limbaugh on the DP World US Ports deal:

    Isn't it ironic that we have this dumb, Texas rube frat-boy defending tolerance and the rights of minorities; and we have the Democratic Party, and the nuanced, elitist, smarter than everyone else in the room liberals acting on blind racism and profiling. Isn't that fascinating?

    It's the same people that tell us we can't profile Sieheb as he strides though an airport. The same people telling us we can't allow these people to come in and have any relationship to the port operations because of where they're from.
    -----

    He isn't Rusty Humphries, but you do listen to Rush, right?

     
  • At 23/2/06 5:57 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "OK, fine. I apologize."

    Fine, I'll let you stay as long as you are at least a little reasonable toward me.

    "although I did find the PETA slam offensive"


    Alright, fair enough. It was just an exapmle really. It was to prove a point that my opinion wasn't based on race but terrorist connections, like I said, PETA has given money to ELF.

    allisoni baloni said...
    "I'm wondering if you could please give evidence for your "bullet points,""

    What, you don't trust Chuck Schumer? Most of this came right out of the 9/11 commision report.

    "He isn't Rusty Humphries, but you do listen to Rush, right?"

    I never did listen to Rush and because of his opinion on this, I probably never will. I've stopped watching the O'reilly factor too because of his opinion on this.

    "BTW why are you right wingers against EVERY organization that wants to protect rights??"

    Because they are Liberal organizations, you can't tell me you support places like the Heritage foundation?

     
  • At 23/2/06 9:48 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Cody-
    I wasn't attacking what you said, so I don't need a stupid sarcastic remark back. If you know where it's from I'd like to see it--thats all I was requesting.

     
  • At 23/2/06 10:10 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Cody-
    I wasn't attacking what you said, so I don't need a stupid sarcastic remark back. If you know where it's from I'd like to see it--thats all I was requesting."


    I didn't mean to sound rude, just so you know. But anyways, I got it from Schumer, a FOX news article, and the 9/11 commission report. These aren't the same articles I got info for my article, but it certainly is enough to prove my point.


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185725,00.html


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185825,00.html

     
  • At 24/2/06 10:12 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    "BTW why are you right wingers against EVERY organization that wants to protect rights??"

    We're not. I support the NRA for instance. They want to protect our gun rights.

    I'm not trying to start an arguement here but I'm just pointing out that you have to look at the word rights from both a conservative and liberal view. For instance I believe we have right to weapons, a right to getting a chance to live, and a right to run a buisness without government say as to who I have to hire. I'd support organazations that support those rights.

     
  • At 24/2/06 9:22 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Yea, gun rights are certainly more important than civil liberties. I believe in restrictions on gun ownership. You don't need an assault rifle or an automatic weapon. There are lots of governmental restrictions concerning what you can and cannot own. These laws exist for the public good.

    The government does not tell business owners who to hire. They do prohibit discrimination. You think that's a bad idea?

    As for your right to get a chance to live -- I assume you mean be born. No, Sorry, you don't have that right. That's the mother's decision.

     
  • At 25/2/06 6:22 PM, Blogger MDConservative said…

    I am for the deal, I have found that there is no legitimate reason to be worried. But I think it is fair enough for those who want more review. I do find it a little odd that everyone jumped on the "arab country" boat. It does send a bad message, believe it or not.

    But it will be argued out, debated, and in the end approved.

    w-dervish:
    "The government does not tell business owners who to hire. They do prohibit discrimination."

    I love to hear people say that. I have no problem with the majority of restrictions, but don't try to sell me that the Govt. doesn't tell you who to hire. If I specifically want to hire only white, or black, or purple people... I will get sued. If I just tell a person I am only hiring whites, or men.

    I am not for discrimination but, don't try to say that to stop it doesn't require telling people who they can hire.

     
  • At 25/2/06 7:44 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yea, gun rights are certainly more important than civil liberties.

    Hell yes they are! Without guns there would be no civil rights. Look at Russia! They took the guns away and the gov't contrrolled everyone with threat of violence. The people were helpless and the USSR started to discriminate against Jews! If the people under the commie regime had had guns, they would have revolted sooner ending discrimination.

    You don't need an assault rifle or an automatic weapon.

    Oh yeah, let's just let the criminals and the gov't have those so we can't defend ourselves eh dervish?

    The government does not tell business owners who to hire. They do prohibit discrimination. You think that's a bad idea?


    Yes. If a PRIVATE BUISSNESS OWNER wants to discriminate the gov't should NOT be able to tell him not to. That's restriction of trade and restriction of freedom of speech.

    As for your right to get a chance to live -- I assume you mean be born. No, Sorry, you don't have that right. That's the mother's decision.

    Yeah the mother's decision, right. What if your mother decided she didn't want you eh? You wouldn't be here. You'd be dead. NO ONE has a right to murder dervish. I find it ironic how you hate guns (which kill criminals) but are for the killing of children. It sends a real messege about you.

     
  • At 25/2/06 10:44 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... If a PRIVATE BUISSNESS OWNER wants to discriminate the gov't should NOT be able to tell him not to. That's restriction of trade and restriction of freedom of speech.

    It's discrimination and it's against the law.

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah the mother's decision, right. What if your mother decided she didn't want you eh? You wouldn't be here. You'd be dead. NO ONE has a right to murder dervish.

    Why and HOW would I care? You are right that no one has the right to murder. That's why murder is illegal and abortion is not.

    DarkSaturos said... I find it ironic how you hate guns (which kill criminals) but are for the killing of children. It sends a real messege about you.

    What would that message be?

    Firearm Statistics

    Gun Injuries and Deaths Among Young People

    In 1998 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) 10 young people a day died from gunshot.

    Gun homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for young people 10-14 years of age and the second leading cause of death for young people 15-24. [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.]

    Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for both African-American and white teenage males [Journal of the American Medical Association].

    One in six parents say they know a child who accidentally shot himself or herself with a gun [Harvard School of Public Health].

    Guns and Suicide

    A youth aged 10-19 committed suicide with a gun every six hours in 1995 -- 1,449 young people in one year [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997].

    At a national level, emergency room data verify that suicide attempts with firearms are almost always fatal -- for every gun suicide, there is less than one nonfatal injury. [Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995].

    Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun. [Kellerman, A.L. et al., N Engl J Med 327, 1993.]

    The US Compared to Other Countries

    In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]

    Nine out of ten young people who are murdered in industrialized countries are slain in the United States [United Nations Children’s Fund report, "The Progress of Nations" quoted in St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/93].

    The US Compared to Other Countries

    Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]

    Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than there were American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War [National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac].

    ----------

    But it's worth it, right? Gun rights are much more important that people's LIVES.

     
  • At 26/2/06 4:35 PM, Blogger MDConservative said…

    The people involved in that are one of the following:

    Criminals, Drunk, or overall just don't have any training.

    These people have not learned how to properly use a gun. What do you think would happen if you just tossed the keys to cars to everyone in the world at age 12 and put them on I-95? They would have the death rates you quote in these gun studies.

    You own the gun you are responsible. Keep it away from your kids, get them and yourself trained in gun safety.

    You want to take my gun because people use them to commit suicide? Are you kidding me?

    New law: No razor blades, knives, or rope will be allowed for the public.

    In addition alcohol is prohibited (as a prevent to depression) and for all that take medication you have to go to the hospital for every single dose, you no longer may have a prescription in your possession. You might accidentally or intentionally over-dose.
    Where do you want it to stop? We could all get our nutrition via IV, not eat food and then we can prevent people from choking to death! I just have one great idea after another.

     
  • At 26/2/06 4:49 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    MDConservative said...
    "I am for the deal, I have found that there is no legitimate reason to be worried."

    None of the reasons in my two posts were legit? Alright, I'm guessing you lean a little Libertarian, fair enough. I like free trade and capitalism too, but do you really think economy trumps security? Because the way I see it, when your ports get blown up there is no economy.

    w-dervish said...
    "Why and HOW would I care? You are right that no one has the right to murder. That's why murder is illegal and abortion is not."

    If abortion isn't murder then what the h*ll is it? Manslaughter?

    And about your gun/death stats dervish, this is a parental problem, not a gun problem. If a parent treats their kids so badly they hate themselves, then leave a loaded gun on the living room couch, who's fault is it really. The gun or the parent?

    The real point is about defense, when you ban guns crime rates go up, it's just fact. Think of it this way:

    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

    Do you think a criminal with try to rob a convenience store if the clerk has a gun or doesn't have a gun? The latter. Why? Because if guns are banned, the only people who have them are criminals and police, so civilians have no defense making it easier for criminals to commit crime. The criminals will have the upper-hand in your gun-free dream world dervish.

     
  • At 26/2/06 4:52 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I said...
    "Do you think a criminal with try to rob a convenience store if the clerk has a gun or doesn't have a gun?"

    make that a "will"

     
  • At 26/2/06 6:52 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It's discrimination and it's against the law.


    Just because it's against the law doesn't mean the law is right.

    Why and HOW would I care? You are right that no one has the right to murder. That's why murder is illegal and abortion is not.


    So you think killing someone, a child no less, is not murder?

    As for your anti-gun comments, would you like some statistics? In Canada and Austrailia they took the guns away. Gun deaths went down, but violence deaths went WAY up. What do you say to that dervish?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home