Nick Against the World (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter IncuboRossonero
- Start date
I don't want to sound like conspiracy-theory-loving anarchist, however to inspire the procedings in this great thread, I thought I would introduce the topic of port security and our President's insistence that Dubai Ports will do an excellent job in our country. Why in Sam's hell would we want a firm from Dubai overseeing the functions of our ports? As Jay Leno joked, perhaps Osama is in the basement of the White House giving Bush orders. So nonsensical.
But I am sure somebody has written this script before. After the failure of bringing down Saddam in the early 90's, the Bush family needed a way to 1) find a reason to move in and defeat their old nemesis Saddam and 2) capture more fresh oil fields and provide their cronies in the petroleum industry means for expansion. So how exactly could the Bush administration gain public support to enter these two essential campaigns? An attack on this country would suffice. So we enter Iraq and take care of Saddam while securing all sorts of oil fields and letting them be subject to terrorist attacks at the same time. Meanwhile, the Saudis continue pumping money from the United States through the various connections with the oil business within the United States, something strangly related to that Clooney flick in theatres. Then while searching relentlessly for that number one bastard of this world, Mr. Osama, we make plans to employ a firm from a country whose banks allowed money to flow right into the hands of terrorists and probably still allows it to happen today control what goes on in our own ports. Baltimore, New York, New Orleans, Boston. And isn't there a connection between Dubai Ports and the Saudi Government? Hmm. Why does this sound so outlandish?
Now I seriously don't believe 9/11 was Condoleeza's design again, however some of these ties to the Saudis, corporate America, and the Dubai Firm seem rather fishy. God help us if we let such a firm take take over our ports.
But I am sure somebody has written this script before. After the failure of bringing down Saddam in the early 90's, the Bush family needed a way to 1) find a reason to move in and defeat their old nemesis Saddam and 2) capture more fresh oil fields and provide their cronies in the petroleum industry means for expansion. So how exactly could the Bush administration gain public support to enter these two essential campaigns? An attack on this country would suffice. So we enter Iraq and take care of Saddam while securing all sorts of oil fields and letting them be subject to terrorist attacks at the same time. Meanwhile, the Saudis continue pumping money from the United States through the various connections with the oil business within the United States, something strangly related to that Clooney flick in theatres. Then while searching relentlessly for that number one bastard of this world, Mr. Osama, we make plans to employ a firm from a country whose banks allowed money to flow right into the hands of terrorists and probably still allows it to happen today control what goes on in our own ports. Baltimore, New York, New Orleans, Boston. And isn't there a connection between Dubai Ports and the Saudi Government? Hmm. Why does this sound so outlandish?
Now I seriously don't believe 9/11 was Condoleeza's design again, however some of these ties to the Saudis, corporate America, and the Dubai Firm seem rather fishy. God help us if we let such a firm take take over our ports.
Read this when you are sober then 
Irrational Fear, Your Ship Has Come In
Love the oil, hate the ships
The hysteria regarding the proposed acquisition (now delayed, but still moving forward) by Dubai Ports World (DPW) of fabled British-based port operator P&O is notable for the lack of facts behind it. The deal has turned US politics on its head - conservatives who formerly pleaded with us to "trust the President" have turned on him, and liberals are dabbling in racial fearmongering that would be alarming if applied to other groups. Is the furor really about security? Well, not really. Full responsibility for security at US ports and of the cargo that arrives is - and will continue to be - under the jursidiction of the Department of Homeland Security. As bad as the security situation is, it was just as bad the day before the ports deal was announced. "Much more needs to be done," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in a statement on the ports. "This includes increasing inspections of containers, improving intelligence, providing federal funding based on risk, and bolstering the physical security of our ports." While true, these factors have little to do with the ownership of the port operator. "The terminal operators do not run security," explained the head of Philadelphia's port. "That is managed by a combination of the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and Customer and Border Protection" (limiting terrorist infiltrators at DPW to attempts at sneaking bombs onto consolidated balance sheets). So is it about foreign involvement in US port operations? Again, not really. Nearly 80% of US ports are managed by foreign companies, who proved long ago that they can manage ports more efficiently - and profitably - than their US counterparts. Nobody seemed to mind before, and - more importantly - foreign management of ports was never considered an obstacle to improving our port security. Probing further still yields few clues (and evidence) for the vehement opposition. For all the protests - Democrat and Republican, congressional and local - there is very little explanation of how the DPW deal actually impacts port security. Part of this is due to ignorance of the complexities of global trade and its multi-layered jurisdictions, which is why some are simply calling for an extended review. Some opponents trot out a dubious rationale - DPW's state-owned status, the UAE's former recognition of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and that terrorist funding has passed through Dubai banks. But when pushed further for an explanation of exactly how the deal makes us less safe, more vociferous opponents mince no words. "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates," says (former) Bush supporter and congresswoman Sue Myrick, "not just no, but HELL NO!" One of the benchmarks of the Bush administration is "free trade fundamentalism" (the US and UAE are on the verge of signing a free trade agreement), and if there's one thing we've learned about George W. Bush over the past five years, it's that he's one of the most stubborn political leaders of the last few decades - which means that the homefront battle on this issue has only just begun.
Irrational Fear, Your Ship Has Come In
Love the oil, hate the ships
The hysteria regarding the proposed acquisition (now delayed, but still moving forward) by Dubai Ports World (DPW) of fabled British-based port operator P&O is notable for the lack of facts behind it. The deal has turned US politics on its head - conservatives who formerly pleaded with us to "trust the President" have turned on him, and liberals are dabbling in racial fearmongering that would be alarming if applied to other groups. Is the furor really about security? Well, not really. Full responsibility for security at US ports and of the cargo that arrives is - and will continue to be - under the jursidiction of the Department of Homeland Security. As bad as the security situation is, it was just as bad the day before the ports deal was announced. "Much more needs to be done," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in a statement on the ports. "This includes increasing inspections of containers, improving intelligence, providing federal funding based on risk, and bolstering the physical security of our ports." While true, these factors have little to do with the ownership of the port operator. "The terminal operators do not run security," explained the head of Philadelphia's port. "That is managed by a combination of the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and Customer and Border Protection" (limiting terrorist infiltrators at DPW to attempts at sneaking bombs onto consolidated balance sheets). So is it about foreign involvement in US port operations? Again, not really. Nearly 80% of US ports are managed by foreign companies, who proved long ago that they can manage ports more efficiently - and profitably - than their US counterparts. Nobody seemed to mind before, and - more importantly - foreign management of ports was never considered an obstacle to improving our port security. Probing further still yields few clues (and evidence) for the vehement opposition. For all the protests - Democrat and Republican, congressional and local - there is very little explanation of how the DPW deal actually impacts port security. Part of this is due to ignorance of the complexities of global trade and its multi-layered jurisdictions, which is why some are simply calling for an extended review. Some opponents trot out a dubious rationale - DPW's state-owned status, the UAE's former recognition of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and that terrorist funding has passed through Dubai banks. But when pushed further for an explanation of exactly how the deal makes us less safe, more vociferous opponents mince no words. "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates," says (former) Bush supporter and congresswoman Sue Myrick, "not just no, but HELL NO!" One of the benchmarks of the Bush administration is "free trade fundamentalism" (the US and UAE are on the verge of signing a free trade agreement), and if there's one thing we've learned about George W. Bush over the past five years, it's that he's one of the most stubborn political leaders of the last few decades - which means that the homefront battle on this issue has only just begun.
With the few data that are publically known, one can only conclude something is off the hook. Yet I doubt it's possible to make very clear theories that are actually built on arguments. For example, it's know that the US are the ones who made Al Qaeda possible, yet that doesn't imply 9/11 was an inside job. One could say those things were human errors, yet were they really in the normal margin? It's all very vague TBH, despite what Moore might say.
On another note, I'm home alone and apparently people tried to break in next door. Now that's strange, since it's the first day my mother and brothers and sister are out. You see, my mother's a doctor and I hate to say it, but our house doesn't look like the people that live inside are very poor. I was out last night, so it all looks very strange to me. Any burglar would have noticed the paper on our door saying we were gone and any burglar would have noticed our house looked like there was more stuff inside than that of our neighbours. I don't see anything here that points to attempted burglary though.
Ohh please. These are our own fvcking ports here and extensive investigations should be completed before signing such a firm to protect a part of our own country that could be used as a launching point by terrorists. It's not because this Dubai firm is from the Middle East...it's because they could have connections with terrorism....who knows. But these are our own ports, free trade or not.
