• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Bush says Dubai should run our ports

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Big Al

Meteorologist
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
10
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...6/s1573900.htm

I'm strongly opposed to this. As it stands right now, a private British Company runs our ports. (I find it silly that America can't run its own ports but I can't change this.) However, now Bush planning to hand over control over 6 of our vital Atlantic Ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai (I think that's how it spelled).

Bush claims Dubai is a vital ally in the "war on terror". However, Dubai served as a major banking state for the 9/11 attacks, two of the 9/11 terrorists were from Dubai, many of the 9/11 terorists left Dubai for America, and all indications show that Dubai has done nothing to curb Al Qaeda activities. In fact, they have fought multiple measures for fighting terrorists.

Now, I'm not going to say that terrorists are going to take over our ports. That won't happen. Al Qaeda would more likely grease the right palms to gain information on our ports in order to plan an attack through those ports. Al Qaeda has already done business with these people. They know who to go to.

My question is why. And it's been answered. Bush's buddies will make money. Many fat cats will get fatter thanks to this. Some people in Bush's own staff will stand gain millions of dollars from this deal. So our security is being comprimised for money.

discuss
 
I'm so sick of people turning this into a racial issue. If this was an American company run by an Arab-American, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that you don't give your ports to potential enemies. Frankly, giving our ports to ANYONE seems blatantly retarded. Why don't we just sell an airport to Saudi Arabia. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
 
GrnMarvl13 said:
I'm so sick of people turning this into a racial issue. If this was an American company run by an Arab-American, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that you don't give your ports to potential enemies. Frankly, giving our ports to ANYONE seems blatantly retarded. Why don't we just sell an airport to Saudi Arabia. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.

Because no American company can do it.

And the racial issues are totally correct. This is just more anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric.
 
Girafarig_Magcargo said:
And the racial issues are totally correct. This is just more anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric.

And that's why the people who are usually on the side of the slighted in racial debates are AGAINST this move? This isn't a racial issue. It's a nationality issue. A national security issue. It sure as HELL is NOT a religious issue.

As for the no American company being able to run it...I'll ASSUME you've seen a news item on that. And, if so, it's a monetary issue.
 
GrnMarvl13 said:
And that's why the people who are usually on the side of the slighted in racial debates are AGAINST this move? This isn't a racial issue. It's a nationality issue. A national security issue. It sure as HELL is NOT a religious issue.

As for the no American company being able to run it...I'll ASSUME you've seen a news item on that. And, if so, it's a monetary issue.

Security analysts and port officials see no problems with the deal.
 
These are the same "analysts" who said Iraq had WMD's. I don't exactly trust their credibility.

And as I said in the thread on SPPf, if no company can take over the ports then the government should make one or better yet, make an agency that runs the ports.
 
The Big Al said:
These are the same "analysts" who said Iraq had WMD's. I don't exactly trust their credibility.

And as I said in the thread on SPPf, if no company can take over the ports then the government should make one or better yet, make an agency that runs the ports.

Uh, no they aren't.
 
I'm personally of the opinion that state-run companies, when said states happen to be dictatorships, should not be allowed to run our ports.

ESPECIALLY when we're spreading democracy throughout the world as our foreign policy. And that's ignoring the whole 9/11 issue.
 
Girafarig_Magcargo said:
Anything to support this claim?
Aside from the sinking feeling I get when I hear "analysts" are okay with this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom