Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

Do you guys not have the phrase Conflict Of Interest in your phrase book - or more to the point your statutes or codes of behavour?How on earth can somebody who has a financial interest be allowed to be involved in the approval process?

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This registered Republican thinks it's very dangerous. Islam's book, the Quran states that the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer the world for Islam. Thus, no matter what faction of Islam you're dealing with, you must understand that underlying factor. Every Islamic fundie nation has an unlimited supply of suicide ready volunteers waiting in line for their opportunity. Their next strike against the US must be another BIGGIE. In order to prepare for that, there must not be any little warning strikes of impending danger. It must be big or nothing until the opportunity comes, and it will likely come as I understand Biblical prophecy.With SA in charge of the major ports and Iran with Nukes soon to be allied with now Shiite like minded Iraquis, all trained and armed by US expertise, we're setting ourselves up for disaster big time.The Saudis are spending huge amounts of their oil profits building mosques in the US and exporting Islam to the US.I haven't heard yet what Israel thinks about this. I would imagine it worries them to see us in bed with an ideology, most of the followers of which advocate the anhilation of Israel, supportive of the Palestinians.Another thing that tics me with Bush is that he now wants to get the US into mosque building and restore the pretty much totaled out gold domed mosque that the Sunis bombed. Think of the outrage (and rightly so) if the US government were to restore the string of burned out Baptist churches.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

where, specifically? one could make a similar case for christianity -- we are told to go and convert the world. we evangelize because we think it's right, and for the good of the world. can you make the case that islam means violent overthrow, as opposed to peaceful conversion?in the old testament, remember, the jews are promised a land and told to anhilate the people who live there, without exception. the bible specifically advocates genocide in this instance. so remember that violent underpinnings do not neccessarily equal all followers being violent. the mainstream tends to shy away from that kind of thing these days.

---

I already explained this and then you stopped answering me. I'm not stepping on a treadmill with you. Here is a brief summary, if you cannot deal with it then stop answering altogether:1) Documentation is being allowed to be held in a different manner than MANDATED for US companies due to security concerns, and for US companies it is not even national security issues like WMDs. This administration wholly rejected similar pleas by those in the US industries saying all measures must be taken to maximize safety, yet this is not the case with a business who will be in charge of Major Ports? If they are consistent then THEY are allowing for greater security risks.2) The company is nationally owned, by a gov't which is a hereditary theocracy with a record of civil rights abuse (of employees), and exists in a region of rather obvious instability. This sets up longterm issues for strife and other problems. For instance Iran could disrupt that nation such that it effects management of the ports, or internal dissent within that nation (perhaps as they move toward freedom we claim to be supporting) could disrupt the nation in a similar fashion.3) The combination of 1 & 2 presents an added risk for undetected infiltration into the company by opposition elements. While we may be able to have security in place we will now have to add assets to keep the same level of security we have now. It is a cost to us.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

One reason that came to mind in the skewed illogic of this administration is that by allowing a "country" to guard our ports, we can then place accountability on that country should there be a breach in security. This war of ideologies that we have chosen to fight basically is a war of allegences. If Al-Queada does an action, there is nobody to fight....if a nation does something wrong, we can have an excuse to make them accountable.Each individual in the port company is identifiable and is linked to others... in effect, we are forcing our allies to prove themselves by being accountable.

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Oh man, that is good. Maybe we'll see that pop up soon. Then I'd like some reporter ask why we don't let them take over management of our federal buildings and nuclear reactors as well.Heck let them run our military bases! What better way to show everyone how much we trust people in the MidEast, and at the same time force them to prove how honest they are.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

That's compassionate conservatism. The Bush adminsitration believes it's unfair, and they're trying to reach out to those poor unfortunate souls who are disenfranchised from approval processes, simply because of a little ol' conflict of interest.

So, it's actually 21 ports, not 6. That's a new detail coming out, I guess.

I haven't had much time for the internet lately so I haven't been able to follow this thread closely. I did a quick scan and found no mention of this (sorry if I missed something) so I thought I'd bring it up. All security issues aside, the problems of child slavery and sexual slavery should be more than enough to at least justify a "go slow" approach to this ports deal.A week or so before last Christmas I saw an HBO Sports special with Bryant Gumbel about children being enslaved to work as camel jockeys in the UAE. Lots of hidden camera footage was included, and although I can't link to any online video from the special - there doesn't seem to be any - I can provide some other sources of information about this problem: UAE Slavery and Human Trafficking from The Conservative Voice. Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery from a US State Department report. Child Camel Jockeys in the UAE from antislavery.org (includes photos). 86 Kids Rescued From Slavery in UAE from the AP via Fox News.

Buz says: "Islam's book, the Quran states that the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer the world for Islam"Arach says: "where, specifically? one could make a similar case for christianity -- we are told to go and convert the world. we evangelize because we think it's right, and for the good of the world. can you make the case that islam means violent overthrow, as opposed to peaceful conversion?" The above Quanic scriptures are underlying Jihadic doctrine of all fundie Islamic nations, including Saudi Arabia. These nations are radical theocracies. To allow devout adherants of these doctrines of world religious conquest running our major ports is reckless endangerment of our nation by the Bush administration.This was not a threat under the auspicy of the United Kingdom when they ran the ports. It is my notion that given the ports are ever as strategic as our land borders, no foreign power should be allowed ownership or control of them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I haven't seen that yet. Latest news I'm getting is that DHS originally was against the deal (gee Tal what security concerns?), until adjustments were made. Of course since then more changes have been made (vocally if not on paper) by the company regarding security obligations, and the CIA has not reviewed the security situation yet (claiming they were waiting for DHS to point the way).One of the things I love, Michael Moore is the name of the senior VP for the section of the Dubai company involved with this deal. Bush administration makes deal with Michael Moore to allow Arab Theocratic nation to run major ports within the US! Sounds great to me.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Actually I had mentioned that this involves civil rights for worker issues as well. While I assume no child slavery or sexual slavery will be involved with the ports, there are other issues as well. They do have discriminative hiring practices and less than transparent business workings (though I guess I should note that a conservative columnist says that they are "getting better").Weren't reps the one's knocking Clinton for getting cozy with China in the face of human rights issues? Guess when it comes to problems in a more capitalist workforce that's not so much an issue.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Okay buz it is time to reign in the anti-Islamic rhetoric.You may be correct that violent factions of Islam do pay more attention to the warlike passages of the Quran, and so use an interpretation you are suggesting. But that same thing occurs in fundamentalists of all religions (most notably the monotheistic ones), and it is not proper to extrapolate that everyone within such faiths believes in those singular interpretations or that that is what their religion is about. This is a false claim, and it is easily shown to be wrong. While you quotemine some specific passages, you have conveniently left out the passages within the same section which put them in context. This section deals with the aftermath of broken pacts with muslims by Jews and Xians (and I believe pagans too), and discusses what is to come of it. Many interpret this as suggesting a temporary condition since it deals with specific treaties, and at most guidance on what happens when similar deals get broken in the future. I might add that nowhere is it suggesting that the whole world is some sort of goal to fight for.Here are some other passages from the same section. The concept that this is temporary and regional in nature, if not made clear by commentary within the quotes above are reinforced by other passages of the Quran, most notably the section devoted on what to do with disbelievers... That's it Buz. Yes the Quran suggests all disbelievers are mistaken and headed for damnation of some kind, but that is the same for all abrahamic texts. This clearly states that disbelievers are allowed to coexist. There is no sense that they must convert or die. That is the interpretation held by many (the majority) of muslims in the world.So let's set aside the Islam bashing (especially given what they can point to in the Bible regarding Xians and Jews) as a theological reason for rejecting this deal, and look at the practical problems of having such a deal.Okay?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

he also didn't answer the second part of my question, which regarded differentiating islamic verses regarding genocide and killing infidels from judeo-christian ones, and demonstrating that the standard orthodoxy of islam promotes these as literal commandments for the present, where the jewish orthodoxy does not for their similar passages.because if it's JUST the fundamentalists, we can't blame the WHOLE religion.

---

Subscribe to read | Financial TimesI am stunned that Mr. Clinton would willingly subvert our nation's security. Call me crazy, but that sounds insane./sarcasm offThanks Bill.

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people