RE: UAE Management of US Ports (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off Topic Discussion



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 9:11:03 AM)

quote:

one fundamental cause. Privatization.


But are you advocating Nationalization? Should everyone work as a government employee? Has that ever worked? Often doesn't nationalization evolve into Fascism? I'd say that the US is already leaning too closely to Fascist principles such as cronyism, the intertwining of government with religion, and the control of media.

Wasn't the story behind the story in Scientific American the idea that due to budget cutbacks the DoD couldn't afford the people full time that they used as outside contractors?



seaturtle50 -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 12:05:32 PM)

quote:

I sure hope you are a lousy psychic. I am not too far away from two of these ports. I'm not prepared to take one for the team in regards to nuclear attack.

I have been following this story pretty close & even attempted to open a discussion about it on another site. The response was sad. I have often pondered, why America WHY do you let these people stay in power, why don't you speak out about things that you don't agree with, why don't you get involved... the response I got from most I spoke with on this matter was that "don't listen to the media, they are just stirring up trouble" <slapping hand to forehead>


Well i don't think in this case psychic powers are required, as Al Qaeda has and continues to clearly state their goals with regard to doing harm to the "demon U.S." They are clearly on record with regard to their past deeds and future intentions. i for one do not believe that they respect anything with the possible exception of brutality. Ma'am, you do not even want to ask me about the vision i had while meditating! [:-]

We do not "let these people" stay in power. We do our best to work within a political system that is largely flawed. Often, and unfortunately, at best the meager "power" of the individual is limited to the simplistic application of one vote designed to elect the perceived lesser of two evils. Once elected, they must operate within a very developed power structure in order to be effective in any way, and in order to not be villafied by their opposition <which lost the race and is already looking and positioning to win the next one>.

Lets face it, there is such a need for overhaul, and reform within, changing the way the government works, and such a power infra-structure already in place, fueled by immense amounts of cash - there is no big surprise that the individual <rightly> feels the futility of his/Her efforts. Yes, i know ... start at the local level, meanwhile at the global level they are sleeping with their interns, shooting their friends and giving away the ports. [8|]

i have always found it interesting that a country whose pledge states "One Nation Under God, Indivisable ..." is comprised of two main parties that spend the majority of their time trying to undermine the other, often at the detrement of the very people they are supposed to represent. If i "really" wantd to effect change - i would most likely need to form a PAC <read raise money to influence and promote my ideals>.

i feel strongly that the U.S. and its current and past administrations have and are currently making grave errors with regard to securing our borders and the cessation of illegal immigration. That said, i also do not think that the current issue of who is in control of the company operation the ports is the real issue. The devious devices that the enemy of the U.S. <and the enemy of ALL who do not accept and adopt their dogma> seek to bring upon us can and most likely will be brought - regardless of the control to prevent.

i must also add, sometimes it sucks being a world power - because there are grave responsibilities that come along with it. Sometimes when a world power there is a need to flex "muscles." Just like with a police agency, sometimes a need to break down doors and stop the actions of individuals. Never, will everyone be pleased.

st50



Real0ne -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 2:01:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Entire Article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-02-22T181114Z_01_L22174752_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-ARABS.xml&rpc=22

(If someone who knows can send me the instructions on making that long link one word - please send me the instructions on the other side - THANKS!)



Just click Link, paste the url, and in the url name box call it whatever you wish

Entire Article




Lordandmaster -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 2:47:07 PM)

Merc, every Western European nation has national airport security, and none of them are fascist. I think there's a rather wide berth between privatizing everything in sight and fascism. Let private companies earn their bread doing the things that private companies do best. Just don't let them handle stuff like national security (and witness-interrogation in Iraq--I assume you know all about that fiasco).

Anyway, yes, budget cutbacks have hit the Department of Defense, but where did the budget cutbacks come from in the first place? The administration WANTED those cutbacks. It's not as though lightning happened to strike and the DoD suddenly couldn't afford to write its own software anymore. This was SUPPOSED to be how everything was going to work. Then it started working, and then everyone was like, oh shit, you mean they're writing our code in Malaysia now?

As I said, chickens coming home to roost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

one fundamental cause. Privatization.


But are you advocating Nationalization? Should everyone work as a government employee? Has that ever worked? Often doesn't nationalization evolve into Fascism? I'd say that the US is already leaning too closely to Fascist principles such as cronyism, the intertwining of government with religion, and the control of media.

Wasn't the story behind the story in Scientific American the idea that due to budget cutbacks the DoD couldn't afford the people full time that they used as outside contractors?




seaturtle50 -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 6:48:31 PM)

quote:

Just don't let them handle stuff like national security (and witness-interrogation in Iraq--I assume you know all about that fiasco).


Are you referring to the fiasco where the prisoner/hostages got their heads chopped off?

st50



incognitoinmass -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/24/2006 6:33:08 AM)



A great piece in the WSJ this morning that says it much better than I ever could:

It is being said that the Dubai decision has merely given Democrats a chance to get to the president's right on a terror issue (a week after they dove over the ship of state's port side on wiretapping terrorists). Or that election-needy Republicans are distancing themselves from a president with a 40% approval rating. Possibly so, but I thought the war on terror was about something real, not just this fall's dog-catcher elections.
An alternative way of looking at the Dubai Ports World decision is that it finally binds an Arab nation to our side in the war on terror and that it represents a recognition by some Arab elites that their self-interest coincides with ours. Dubai was already cooperating in tracing and identifying al Qaeda's financial flows. Presumably they are in the port-management business for the money. Now you may disagree with this, but there is at least an upside and downside here worth weighing. No chance of that now. The press yesterday clearly set the chalk lines for public discussion on the ports: The only issue now is whether the White House caves to "bipartisan pressure."

Read the whole thing

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110008012

A nation of Chicken Littles, or Drama Queens if you prefer, or Yosemite Sams as the author characterizes them.



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/24/2006 11:08:13 AM)

I was starting to reconsider my position concerning this issue. Then last night, watching the news channels I what I saw convinced me not to. You see, I agree with the WSJ article, and the others who point out all the pragmatic, economic, and political reasons that this deal should go forward. Pragmatically it is a good move. Historically you could compare it to working with the Nazi scientists after WWII to develop rockets which ended up getting the US to the moon. But on screen last night was evidence that, as long as in the Arab world religion and politics are entwined at the DNA level logic doesn't apply.

The golden dome of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra was bombed and destroyed. Allegedly it was done by Sunni or some al-Zarqawi faction wanting to initiate civil war. Whether they succeed or not isn't important. The reaction of the people is. No one was killed in the bombing. Yet a large crowd gathered and cried while beating their chest and sobbing at the lose of a building. Hundreds have subsequently been killed in the rioting that followed. I compare this to the scene of dancing in the streets after 9/11 when Muslim leaders claimed responsibility for the destruction of the towers where thousands died. Then there is the cartoon situation. Hundreds of people have died protesting a cartoon that most of them haven't seen. Heroes in the Muslim world are suicide bombers of children attending school, or people attending religious services. Their leaders call for the destruction and elimination of Israel and all the world not Muslim. No Muslim country has ever issued condemnation of these acts or the ongoing activity. The UAE does not recognize the right for Israel to exist. Applying western morality with western expectations is not appropriate and based upon observable behavior. Recent history illustrates that this deal will not generate any good will or partnership in eliminating terrorism.

We’ve made the Mullahs rich with our thirst for oil. As much as western consumerism influenced the downfall of the former USSR, it wasn’t allowed to take root in Muslim countries. There is no revolution allowed. People only get their news and information from government approved sources. None of those sources is west friendly. Nothing I have seen originating from the Muslim world would have me reconsider that if they had the ability to turn the US into a nuclear wasteland they would; even if in doing so it resulted in eliminating the biggest market for their oil. Turning over management of the ports makes it easier to do so.

Say what you want regarding the source of "morality" in the west but the Judeo-Christian philosophy but that philosophy is at the foundation of most laws, most treaties between governments and every business contract. Going back to the Dark Ages and the crusades Judeo- Christian and Muslim philosophies haven’t mixed. Initially they were very similar to each other. If you didn’t convert from one to the other you deserved death. Somehow, the Judeo-Christian side evolved into only threatening eternal death of your soul if you didn’t follow the “one true way”; abandoning the corporal death and/or dismemberment. However the Muslim side stayed fundamental in philosophy and in action.

The west can not deal with this reality. Applying western or Judeo-Christian attributes to contemplated treaties or relationships with Muslim countries doesn’t work. Our lack of understanding and consideration of fundamental differences is the reason why this deal should not go through. All the rationalizations why this is okay are fundamentally flawed because reasoning assumes a Judeo-Christian morality. The same “other world” difference applies to Eastern philosophy and morality, but there is no fundamental position in Eastern culture where death to “infidels” is a religious requirement.

This opinion isn’t based upon prejudice but observed behavior. Western worship of money supercedes all other considerations. Muslims worship of Allah and the Koran supercedes their concern about money. The company taking over the management of the ports can not be considered in the same manner as a company from any non-Muslim country. Not based upon prejudice, but based upon the published position of the Arab/Muslim states.



UtopianRanger -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/24/2006 11:30:20 AM)

quote:

I was starting to reconsider my position concerning this issue. Then last night, watching the news channels I what I saw convinced me not to.


I think you should send in your application to the ''Bloviating With Bill Contest'' I'd love to hear O'reily try to formulate a logical argument that counters the one you've just made.


- The Ranger



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/24/2006 11:43:22 AM)

quote:

I think you should send in your application to the ''Bloviating With Bill Contest'' I'd love to hear O'reily try to formulate a logical argument that counters the one you've just made.


If I could stand watching O'Reily for more than a couple minutes I'd know what you are talking about I guess. But thanks for what I'll consider a compliment. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
2.734375E-02