So it looks like the Bushes aren't the only presidential family with ties to
the Middle East. And BTW, I don't see anything wrong with a former
president making a buck as long as its above board, so more power to Bill
Clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/lj8xo
"Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The
I'm not actually. But there is legitimate reason for concern. I know it's hard
for you to see shades of grey so let me see if I can make it simpler. Arabs are
people. Some people do bad things. Does that help?
> So all last week you were ranting about Muslims being people and
> we're
> painting
> Zbee wrote:
> That's the disconnect for me. It was mentioned that one of the
> reasons for scrubbing the deal was that 2 of the highjackers were from
> the UAE. To me, that's not teaching, training and/or motivating.
>
But it could be. Being from the UAE is a distinguishing
characteristic. I
That's the disconnect for me. It was mentioned that one of the
reasons for scrubbing the deal was that 2 of the highjackers were from
the UAE. To me, that's not teaching, training and/or motivating.
On 3/12/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Zbee wrote:
> > I got to thinking about thi
> Zbee wrote:
> I got to thinking about this again last night and realized that most
> foreign countries should probably kick us out of owning/controlling
> infrastructure in their countries.
The difference there would be that we're providing the infrastructure
to do harm while other countries are
I got to thinking about this again last night and realized that most
foreign countries should probably kick us out of owning/controlling
infrastructure in their countries. Afterall, it seems that we college
educate most of the terrorists and we teach them to fly also. If
we're going to hold other
Weird, eh?
On 2/23/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So all last week you were ranting about Muslims being people and we're
> painting them all with one brush. This week your saying all Arabs are
> terrorists.
> Which is it?
~
So all last week you were ranting about Muslims being people and we're
painting them all with one brush. This week your saying all Arabs are
terrorists.
Which is it?
On 2/22/06, dana tierney wrote:
> US and Canadian too? I had seen something about the Australian warnings, not
> the others though.
First time through, I read it the bad way. Maybe that's my cynic side
shining through :)
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security
> of the United States of America," Bush told reporters during a Cabinet
> meeting.
>
> Hyou kno
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security
of the United States of America," Bush told reporters during a Cabinet
meeting.
Hyou know, you can read that two ways :)
On 2/23/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And can you tell me what Reid and Walker
And can you tell me what Reid and Walker had in common with most of
the UAE that is not shared by most of the employess of the current
British company or by most Americans?
And that IS a problem we need to be worried about.
On 2/23/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, The attempted
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:24 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> > Dana wrote:
> > I started to say I agree with you, or at least it should be limited to
> allies...
>
> The problem there is that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are
As I understand it the dock workers work for the port management company.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:41 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Nope. Wrong
Nope. Wrong on two counts. Running the cranes and driving the trucks
will actually take place by the dockworkers, who I believe are union
at all six ports. Also, the port management, their records and
documentation, and their personel suggest which containers to
physically open, decide which worker
> Dana wrote:
> I started to say I agree with you, or at least it should be limited to
> allies...
The problem there is that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are allies
however almost all (if not all?) of the 9/11 hijackers came from those
2 countries.
I'm sure the UAE *government* fully supports t
We are talking about running the cranes, driving the trucks. Not picking
which container to search and which ones not to.
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:04 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bu
> Nick wrote:
> But he can't say that unless he is prepared to ask congress to pull the
> contracts from any other foreign company along these lines.
>
Not true at all. He could say they're doing it on an attrition basis,
but if he wanted to pull all of the contracts so be it.
~~
essage-
>> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:12 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>>
>> US and Canadian too? I had seen something about the Australian
>warnings,
>> n
What makes you think they get carte blanche? The people checking the IDs
are still Americans working for the federal government.
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:12 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: R
t [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
>
> This just seems like one of THE DUMBEST things Mr. Bush has done. And
> that's saying a lot!
>
> Sure, you can make the argueme
I started to say I agree with you, or at least it should be limited to
allies... but theoretically the UAE and Saudi Arabia are allies, huh ;) Very
theoretically, but in the realm of theory where this administration operates.
It's probably going to be difficult to differentiate between allies an
think this should be American
run red white and blue.
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:12 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> US and Canadian too? I had seen something a
US and Canadian too? I had seen something about the Australian warnings, not
the others though.
I can (just barely) see Mush's position, but I think it's really dumb. How can
you require someone like me to show a picture ID to get into the FBI
headquarters here, but the UAE gets carte blanche
An interesting sidenote:
On Lou Dobbs (I think), it was just pointed out that although the UAE
has been an ally since 1971, there are consular warnings to be aware
that terrorism is a threat in-country. This is from the US, Canadian,
British and Australian embasses (among others).
So although the
> Jerry wrote:
> Because, like any other bid process in the US, it was as much about
> who you know as what you bid. The British company, from what I have
> read, had good connections (read lobbying firms), had a decent bid,
> and a good track record.
>
This just seems like one of THE DUMBEST thin
Because, like any other bid process in the US, it was as much about
who you know as what you bid. The British company, from what I have
read, had good connections (read lobbying firms), had a decent bid,
and a good track record.
Also, from what I have read, the UAE company is a great company and
h
Then why didn't they get the contract on these?
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:54 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> From what I have read, there are m
Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:50 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> So what are they actually acquiring?
>
> The manag
Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:12 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Security by the Coast Guard and the TSA assumes that the management is
> working WITH them, not against them.
>
> If, by some h
Security by the Coast Guard and the TSA assumes that the management is
working WITH them, not against them.
If, by some happenstance, persons hostile to the US were put in charge
of significant portions of the port management, then they could very
easily bring in huge amounts of things detrimental
Security is still handled by TSA and the Coast Guard, that won't change.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Running it secure
Running it securely? With the same intensity as someone who is from this
country?
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Somethi
Something to consider is they may well be much, much better at running
a port than a US company. From what I understand, the asian shipping
companies own the market because they do so much more shipping than
everyone else.
On 2/22/06, Tim Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what are they actuall
If my friend told me he was giving my keys to another person, I would
take my keys back. I would try to find someone else to hold them. If I
couldn't, I'd keep the keys myself.
If it is a security risk, it does not matter that there are only 3
foriegn companies that can do it. Security is job 1. W
y, February 22, 2006 4:44 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> But the port it self is government owned, the land, the
> equipment, that is owned by the US.
>
> The people that work there are Americans, and pay taxes in the US.
>
> > -
CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Let it close. A week later someone will buy it.
>
> At a minimum a coalition of the people that rely on these ports would come
> together to buy it.
>
> It's called capitalism.
>
> > -Original Messa
6 4:26 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> But if no company in America wants to run it, then what do you do?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:13 P
ss off
the brits, and do a new bid, that we can't be certain Dubai Ports wouldn't
win anyway. Or we don't interfere.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:20 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re:
But if no company in America wants to run it, then what do you do?
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> I would go further
For all of Jimmy Carter's strengths as an ex-president, national
security is not what I remember him for.
No, it is so easy to throw out a word like racism, and expect everyone
on the recieving end to turn into a quivering mass of apologies. Not
going to happen.
This is not racial. It has element
CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> I agree. I don't see how it could be a good idea.
>
> >I have a problem with this, not just because of the fact that it is the
> UAE
> >involved (which HAS to add a level of security concern. 2 of the
> hijackers
&g
American companies can't afford to do it because of union costs.
On 2/22/06, Nick McClure wrote:
> But the London company got the contract via a public bid.
>
> The congress would have to remove the contract from the British company,
> which would in essence prevent the sale to the UAE, as the UAE
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> This isn't a public bid. The UAE is buying a London company and is
> 'inheriting&#x
ommunity
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> In order to prove it, wouldn't someone need to INVESTIGATE it, and
> maybe THINK about it, maybe even DISCUSS it with a few other people?
>
> This is the step that seems to have been skipped.
>
> And Congress can certa
yes, the secrecy is troubling
>> But in the case of a public bid process can we limit the UAE if they passed
>> the vetting?
>
>On the face of it, no.
>
>> Now you can complain about the vetting process, but I don't know what was
>> involved there.
>
>same here, damned secrecy...
>
>:-P
>
>will
>-
yes, the secrecy is troubling
>> But in the case of a public bid process can we limit the UAE if they passed
>> the vetting?
>
>On the face of it, no.
>
>> Now you can complain about the vetting process, but I don't know what was
>> involved there.
>
>same here, damned secrecy...
>
>:-P
>
>will
>-
I agree. I don't see how it could be a good idea.
>I have a problem with this, not just because of the fact that it is the UAE
>involved (which HAS to add a level of security concern. 2 of the hijackers
>were from there. The nuclear materials shipped from Kahn in Pakistan went
>through ports in t
I would go further and say that this is vital infrastructure and should be
run by Americans.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
In order to prove it, wouldn't someone need to INVESTIGATE it, and
maybe THINK about it, maybe even DISCUSS it with a few other people?
This is the step that seems to have been skipped.
And Congress can certainly pass a law that forbids the company to
retain the contracts to manage the ports (the
It gets better. Besides having secret meetings to rush the process through,
the white house is now claiming that Bush had no idea about it till a few
days ago. Doesn't explain why he's threatening a veto for something that was
never a concern of his and 'never got up to his level'. Yep, this
ad
, 2006 1:58 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> I trust the brits.
>
> Should be run by americans though.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:46
Yes actually I do.
> -Original Message-
> From: William Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:42 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> > The fact that ANY foreign
> > government has contro
Don't forget. We support offensive (free) speech.
The moderate Muslim (yeah right) is against us now.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:53 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First V
I trust the brits.
Should be run by americans though.
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:46 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Well, what reason would they
Wtf is wrong with this administration?
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:46 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Bush's First Veto?
>
> New York lawmakers stunned by Bush's ports veto threat By
> DEVLIN BARRETT Associated
Not to ring the "well they all do it" bell again but, NY has always
been shortchanged by Washington. We always kick in the most money and
get the smallest percentage back.
Kind of like the rich should pay all the tax because they have more
money to spare. I think NY built most of Houston in the 80'
That's what I've been trying to say, and just haven't been doing a very good
job.
This company has obviously passed all the requirements to OWN the port
(control of the port, from all i've heard, would still be by
Americans)...so either you don't trust the process, or you don't trust
this
This isn't a public bid. The UAE is buying a London company and is
'inheriting' the contract.
> But in the case of a public bid process can we limit the UAE if they
> passed
> the vetting?
But they didn't pass the required 45 day vetting, only a special Bush 23 day
one and we have NO idea what
> But in the case of a public bid process can we limit the UAE if they passed
> the vetting?
On the face of it, no.
> Now you can complain about the vetting process, but I don't know what was
> involved there.
same here, damned secrecy...
:-P
will
--
"If my life weren't funny, it would just b
ry 22, 2006 11:00 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> I guess my concern here (and it is not one shared by the US
> government, obviously) is: how much trust are we putting in the hands
> of essentially foreign government controlled businesses? how muc
I don't know of anyone minding them owning businesses in the US.
Control of our ports (identified repeatedly as our most vulnerable
avenue for terrorist action) is another thing.
I am not saying even that should not happen. But I think it needs a
little more thought and discussion than this seems
Nope. If North Korea were in the bidding, I'd want the same review. Or
Venezuala. Or Mexico. Or Kosovo.
The fact is, the UAE needs more scrutiny than Britain does. (At the
moment. This can change). If for no other reason than long-term self
interested support form Britain has given us a fairly st
> Welcome to the wonderful world of globalisation :(
Honestly I don't mind that much as I work for the French company
involved and I do happen to know that the software engineers
building/maintaining the software are the same ones that have been
building/maintaining it all along; it's not as if th
> In the UK I think almost all the major utility companies are now
> foreign owned, we were told when the government sold them off that it
> would increase competition and drive down prices - the opposite
> happened.
The software is built/maintained by the same three companies :-)
Utility ownersh
If we're selling them f-16's, then that's not the only weaponry we're
selling them. My point is, if they're enough of an ally to sell
weaponry too, why are they not enough of an ally to let them own
businesses in the U.S.
If the U.S. doesn't want foreign control of the ports, they need to
take ov
Weren't some of us on this list berated just a few days ago for our lack of
tolerance and understanding for Muslim and Arab culture? And yet, now we are
being told that we should deny a legitimate business the capacity to operate
in our ports solely because they are Arab in origin?
Am i missing
Because they can't reach HERE with the f-16s?
Because, without active maintenance and our parts, they can't keep them in
the air?
Also, don't forget Iran has a number of our submarines (deisel I think), so
things DO change.
On 2/22/06, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The UAE is t
Actually, it looks like this is just the shipping business. The top 3
companies that manage ports worldwide:
1. Hutchinson Whampoa (Hong Kong)
2. PSA International (Singapore)
3. DPW (After they buy P&O) (Dubai)
>From what I underestand, Asia dominates the world shipping industry.
The buyout of P
The UAE is the same country that we've been selling f-16's to
recently. What's the difference here.
On 2/22/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sandra wrote:
> > Keep in mind that the ports affected by this are not only in NY. Baltimore
> > is also one of the ports affected as well as
I have a problem with this, not just because of the fact that it is the UAE
involved (which HAS to add a level of security concern. 2 of the hijackers
were from there. The nuclear materials shipped from Kahn in Pakistan went
through ports in the UAE. There ARE people there who DO NOT LIKE US), but
Isn't it also akin to saying "You are a legitimate company with every right
to operate in this capacity, but we want to stop you because you are Arab"
That doesn't sound very American.
> Well, it probably has something to do with wanting to keep the UAE on our
> side, and not send a message to
Well, it probably has something to do with wanting to keep the UAE on our
side, and not send a message to other Middle Eastern Countries that the US
can't trust them in international trade.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well, it just takes one.
>
>
NY is only one of the seven ports on the list, they stretch the entire
eastern seaboard.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:09 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
TECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:53 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> then i guess im shocked on two fronts.
>
> 1. that we had freakin ports owned by british companies who could give
> a fuck, when it all boils down, what happens to
> Sandra wrote:
> Keep in mind that the ports affected by this are not only in NY. Baltimore
> is also one of the ports affected as well as New Jersey, Philadelphia,
> Miami, and New Orleans.
>
Well, it just takes one.
My issue is that, while there are many things out of our control, this
is some
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
Not really. The Bush administration has shown time and again that it cares
nothing for NY. Has it given NY the money it promised for 9/11 rebuilding?
No. Has it given NY a realistic share of the homeland security budget as a
first responder
Welcome to the wonderful world of globalisation :(
In the UK I think almost all the major utility companies are now
foreign owned, we were told when the government sold them off that it
would increase competition and drive down prices - the opposite
happened.
On 2/22/06, William Bowen <[EMAIL PRO
> The fact that ANY foreign
> government has control over our ports is a sign to worry.
Why should that worry you? close to 50% of the United States energy
grid (from generation to distribution) is run on software created and
maintained by a French company (and that company was until very
recently
y"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:45 AM
> Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
>
>> Well, what reason would they have to block such a sale?
>>
>> This quote makes it sound like it is a US company operating the ports
>> now.
>>
>> The
A private British company was bought by a government owned company that will
now control the ports. The reasons to block the sale are many and stated in
almost every news article on the subject. The fact that ANY foreign
government has control over our ports is a sign to worry.
> Well, what re
Yeah true true, just seems like an odd move to make given the current
political situation.
- Original Message -
From: "Nick McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Bush's First Veto?
>
esday, February 21, 2006 8:42 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
> >
> > Its no surprise given the Bush families history of cosy business
> relations
> > with certain wealthy families from the Middle East.
> >
> > Michaelb
TECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:42 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush's First Veto?
>
> Its no surprise given the Bush families history of cosy business
relations
> with certain wealthy families from the Middle East.
>
> Michaelb.
>
> - O
Its no surprise given the Bush families history of cosy business relations
with certain wealthy families from the Middle East.
Michaelb.
- Original Message -
From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Bush's First Veto?
84 matches
Mail list logo
