DescentBB

I'd like to take a moment out from gathering pitch forks and torches and ask all my fellow villagers a question.
If an arab company shouldn't be allowed to do business managing the loading and unloading of ships in our ports then shouldn't we also take the same security measures and apply them wherever security is a concern?
After all this is all about security isn't it?

Here's just a partial list of areas we need to address:

1) China, Malaysia, numerous Arabian countries, Eastern European and other suspicious, terrorist supporting, or just down right strange sounding countries have leased terminals at major american airports to use for their commercial passenger carrying aircraft to land. You do remember what arabs do when they fly airplanes don't you?!?

We should ban these dangerous people from flying into american airspace right away. We're on the verge of another 9/11 attack at every airport in america everyday!!
Obviously this is just giving the all mighty dollar priority over national security and it must stop. The inconvenience and reprecussions this causes will just have to be accepted.

2) Those same bad guys on the list operate cargo aircraft and obviously we should cut them off as well.

3) UPS, DHL, Federal EXpress etc. all fly their aircraft in and out of those dangerous countries picking up god knows what and we have no control over the cargo that gets loaded on those planes. So obviously a terrorist could use remote control to detonate a weapon of mass destruction once the aircraft is over one of our cities. I recently bought a new tablet PC and it came all the way to Kentucky before it was stopped by customs to be possibly searched (about 15% chance that it was actually inspected) It could have easily been a remotely detonated anthrax bomb! That practice has to stop right now!

I guess those aircraft will have to be re-routed to some isolated location to be completely searched piece by piece before being allowed to enter american airspace. Of course that will mean using some foriegn country to land the planes at and search them...hmmm does this mean we have just broken the security chain? Maybe we need to re-think this whole global shipping debacle. Let china and other foriegn countries figure out how to get their product to us and how to pick up the american product they buy from us for that matter. Sorry Wal-Mart all your customers are in for a rude awakening and a major price increase to cover the cost of shipping! Oh well we all hate Wal-Mart anyway don't we? So screw all those people who buy stuff there...it's not like they're real americans buying the stuff anyway right?

4) Foriegn banks use money. They sometimes have money pass through their banking system that is used to finance terrorists. Should we continue to allow these banks to do business in america? I don't think our new zero tolerance standards can allow that!!

5) Embassies. Everyone knows that embassies are used to channel spies and diplomatic pouches containing god knows what uninspected right through immigration and customs! We need to do something right now about these sanctuaries for evil terrorists that are right here in our country!
Crap!! I just realized, even James Bond is a foriegner! We have no protection from these evil countries!!
We need some drastic measures or it's game over!

From now on they all have to just use the telephone and fax machines to communicate with us. There is no reason we should have to let them come here in person and live among us.

6) Obviously the United Nations will have to shut down and all foriegners will have to leave...nuff said on that one!

7) What's with all these foriegn doctors, scientists and engineers?
A lot of foriegners come over here to study in our schools and learn all sorts of dangerous skills.
Some of them stay here and do business, some of them take their skills and knowledge right back to those dangerous, terrorist spawning countries they came from and who knows what they are doing now?!?
There is no doubt that some of these foriegn students now have the ability to formulate biological and chemical and nuclear weoponary simply because they were allowed to come over here and attend our schools!! And the ones who stayed here, can we really trust them?
Sure Doctor < insert terrorist sounding name here > seems like a nice enough person but who knows when they might funnel money back home to fund the next 9/11 attack or start to inject our children with islamo-juice!?!?

8 ) Did you know the governor of California is a foriegner?!? And Peter Jennings was too!! From now on we can't have foriegners reading the news or running government agencies. I'm still undecided about all these foriegn baseball players getting into the Hall of Fame. I mean come on is it really as american as Apple Pie if it's played by some guy who's brother might be plotting to blow up the Statue of Liberty?
Come on people get with the program!


Well there is so much more we need to add to the list of foriegn threats but this should be enough to get the ball rolling a little faster because obviously the press and the campaigning politicians just haven't whipped you all into enough of a frenzy yet. Remember, if it ain't american it's probably a terrorist.

And add all of those americans that weren't born here or that have foriegn blood.



OH ★■◆● THEN THERE'D BE NO AMERICAN's but true American's

I guess that's the Cherokee in me at conflict with the Chinese and whatever the hell else I am made from

Just like everyone in America

dude.. are you on crack?

you are mocking the same logic that you yourself have used, i.e. \"we have to take this drastic step because it's post 9-11.\"

Palzon wrote:you are mocking the same logic that you yourself have used, i.e. "we have to take this drastic step because it's post 9-11."

I think I've supported some drastic steps yes....but they were based in logic not ignorance and they have proven to have some positive results with the potential for more positive results in the future.

The current hysteria aimed at stopping a UAE company from managing the loading and unloading of containers at some of our ports, apparantly only because they are arabs, is not anywhere close to being logical nor does it stand the slightest chance of being effective at improving our security.

I recognize the similarity of the language in the call to arms behind the two but reject the premise that they are both built on the same or even similar foundations.
Add to the list of differences the fact that the motives behind my desire for proactive measures in the War on Terror are sincere and this snipehunt to supposedly save us from the UAE is total political posturing.

Ferno wrote:dude.. are you on crack?

Was it imported crack?

but they were based in logic not ignorance and they have proven to have some positive results with the potential for more positive results in the future.

aaahahahahaha. this is funny stuff.

Ferno wrote:

but they were based in logic not ignorance and they have proven to have some positive results with the potential for more positive results in the future.

aaahahahahaha. this is funny stuff.

I remember laughing inappropriately when I was a stoner too....when you come down try to join the conversation and lets see if you actually have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.

I laughed because it was rediculous.

sure didn't take you long to try an insult.

I would add to the conversation if there was any intelligence in it.

My only concern on this subject was the lack of notification that was given not only to the public, but to the various state governments who's ports are in question. Like it or not invading Iraq, in hind sight, was a questionable move and more than likly an over reaction to 9/11 because Iraq had a very hostile stand towards us. What is done is done, The Muslim world now knows beyond a doubt we will react in a destructive manner when this type of non-sence takes place.
But back to topic, we should not refuse to do business with them and become an isolated country. That can only ruin us completly as it did Russia. But I do think there should be limits as to what kind of business we do with them and what kind of information access we give them untill they show us we can trust them. But we have to extend the hand of friendship first.

Ferno wrote:I laughed because it was rediculous.

sure didn't take you long to try an insult.

I would add to the conversation if there was any intelligence in it.

No, of course not, you quoting me and then laughing at what I said wasn't insulting was it?
Do you really think you can join a serious conversation by repeating what someone says and then laugh at them without that person taking it as an insult?

As far as your appraisal of the intelligence behind my position, if it is so rediculous [sic] then why not straighten me out with an intelligent rebuttal instead of resorting to rude laughter? Or at least, if you must be a jerk, be honest about it and don't pretend your little feelings are hurt when I call you on your rude behavior.

It's up to you, you can be an ass or we can have a discussion.

For a slightly different point of view:
I don't think we should have had those ports under the control of a british company. It's only rational to keep certain important security areas under control of citizens (of any race, just so long as they are citizens).

But then, I ALSO think it's foolish that most of our telecommunications companies are now foreign owned.

I just find it sad that our own government is outsourcing now too.

x2 to what palzon said...for the last three years you have been lambasting Arabs and now you're on a tear...doesn't work that way.

this government controlled company has too many questions marks about it...IF they are to be doing this there should be some sort of inquiry to where at the very least, the american public gets to hear the facts about it, instead of waking up one morning and hearing that some of our biggest shipping ports will be supervised by a country that isn't exactly the greatest ally in the world.

to be clear, I'm not saying Will is wrong in the sense that his support of the port deal may be appropriate. I'm saying he is being hypocrital for pulling out the \"remember 9-11\" argument in the past, and/or foolish for naively (conveniently) overlooking it now.

in any event, the only thing scandalous about this whole incident is that the president didn't know about until it was a done deal.

Zuruck wrote:I just find it sad that our own government is outsourcing now too.

x2 to what palzon said...for the last three years you have been lambasting Arabs and now you're on a tear...doesn't work that way.

this government controlled company has too many questions marks about it...IF they are to be doing this there should be some sort of inquiry to where at the very least, the american public gets to hear the facts about it, instead of waking up one morning and hearing that some of our biggest shipping ports will be supervised by a country that isn't exactly the greatest ally in the world.

Well that's not true, I have been lambasting islamo-facsists and islami-kazi's not all arabs. If you're an arab and you fit that description, yea, I'm calling for your demise.... jihad on your sorry ass! If you're a redneck peckerwood from Arkansas and you fit that description then jihad on your sorry ass! I'm practicing equal opportunity in my fatwah.

And I'm now trying to get people to recognize that it's campaign time and politicians are posturing for the cameras and exploiting the knee jerk reaction of many xenophobic, bigoted or just simply ignorant voters so they will look independant and strong. You can probably trace the districts where Bush is low in the polls and see those are the most vocal of the opponents of the UAE deal. Yet where were they last Oct. when this deal was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal? Where were they when China got the same deal to manage some ports in California?!? Where are they when Saudi Arabia got control of our ports a few years ago?!?

Here's a simple question that I've raised and no one has bothered to answer but it cuts right to the core of the hypocrisy and fraud behind the politicians feigned outrage:

If an arab country having control of the loading docks is a security threat then how bad is the threat posed by an arab country having access to our airport terminals?

After all, no arab has ever attacked us by way of our shipping containers yet they have killed close to 3000 of us with just four airplanes!!
You can take an arabian airliner full of fuel and fly toward a number of our crowded cities and replicate the 9/11 attack right now! You wouldn't need to hijack it because it's an arab plane with an arab pilot and it's flying a recognized flight path on a scheduled flight plan!!!
If arabs from the UAE, by way of their access to our sea ports, can infiltrate the operations and cause us harm through them then certainly the other arabs with access to our airports while flying planes over our cities must be an equal or greater threat!!!

Or is there some secret about those particular arabs at the UAE company that makes them more of a threat that you're not telling me?

You see, it's not the UAE deal that I'm defending, I haven't a clue if the deal on it's own merit makes any sense. I am defending an arab country that seems to be deserving of an opportunity if any one is and mostly I'm going off the hook about how the press is enabling these politicians to demagogue this issue for votes!!!
I guess Vander ought to wander in here and ask me why I hate the status quo so much right now

Will, I like you, but you're defending the UAE becaue your boy Bush is telling you too. Lawmakers are saying to give the UAE the boot, they are looking for some oversight. Something like this in the \"post 9/11\", I quote Cheney, has to be looked at differently. You said nobody has attacked us yet through containers, well, nobody had flown planes into buildings yet either. They found a weakness and exploited it. Wrong person working the docks lets a cargo container with some bad stuff in it through, boom boom.

Now, with that said, why such a big deal to delay it and talk about it. This isn't Bush's country...it's everyones.

Zuruck wrote:Will, I like you, but you're defending the UAE becaue your boy Bush is telling you too. Lawmakers are saying to give the UAE the boot, they are looking for some oversight. Something like this in the "post 9/11", I quote Cheney, has to be looked at differently. You said nobody has attacked us yet through containers, well, nobody had flown planes into buildings yet either. They found a weakness and exploited it. Wrong person working the docks lets a cargo container with some bad stuff in it through, boom boom.

Now, with that said, why such a big deal to delay it and talk about it. This isn't Bush's country...it's everyones.

Actually I responded this way before Bush did.
But that's beside the point for me because my position is my own and sometimes he and I see eye to eye and sometimes we don't. Believe it or not but either way it shouldn't affect your assessment of the situation and whether or not the points I raise are worthy or not....

Also, as I've alluded to in my hypothetical, if your standard of 'being in position to exploit a weakness' is the standard for alarm then where do you stand on arabian companies controlling airport terminals and arab pilots flying planes into our cities? Should we only be concerned with UAE planes and pilots?

Where do you stand on Singapore who is about to buy out numerous ports on the west coast? al Queda is flush in their part of the world...
Where do you stand on Saudi Arabia and China already having the same kind of access and control in our other ports? Do they not have a worse reputation as being the source of terrorists or supplying our enemies?
Where do you stand on arab nations moving items uninspected by customs in diplomatic containers?

If this is only about arabs being in position to exploit a weakness why is no one willing to even mention the other arabs that are already in those positions? People talk about the two 9/11 hijackers that were UAE citizens what about the fourteen 9/11 hijackers that were from Saudi Arabia?!?! Did you know Saudi Arabia already has control of some of our ports?!? Why is that not an issue?!?

Why can arabian airlines load up their planes with anything they want to and fly into our cities?

If the recent hysteria is just about security then those questions should have been addressed immediately after they suddenly discovered the potential UAE port deal.
The press and those politicians should have been screaming about the existing threat at our airports, and the existing Saudi and Chinese control of our sea ports!

Or am I not understanding something about 'being in position to exploit a weakness'? Is that something only a UAE arab can take advantage of?

Nobody has said they \"can't\" do it Will, but with all the factors involved, a little Congressional oversight is very much needed. What if we wake up tomorrow and find out that an Iranian controlled company is going to run all of America's rail freight lines? Wouldn't you like to know what security concerns have been looked at? Is America going to be jeapordized because of a couple backend deals?

Don't you think there are just enough questions to at least have some sort of hearing to find out exactly what's involved? Congress didn't ask for a ban on the UAE, they asked for a delay to look at it. Personally, I'd like to see Americans running American ports but my own countrymen like you Will don't seem to mind everything leaving us. For $6.8 billion I'll start a port company and run the place...

OK, I'll address some of your points in a minute but I have to point out that you're dodging the question there....again...aren't you?
And it is kind of relavent to examining the motive of the current hysteria being raised about the UAE deal!

Tell me should we cut off arabs from flying planes into our cities?
Isn't it true that arabs attacked us by using planes? Wouldn't that mean their access, by way of leasing airport terminals at our airports and flying planes into our cities is at least as big a threat as their managing the loading and unloading of shipping containers at our sea ports?

Now, on to your side track:

I don't want to see america lose work so please don't ascribe a position to me that doesn't exist. You have no idea what my thoughts are on that issue...

Anyway, If an american company wants the job why didn't they bid on it?
What I've read is there is no american company that can do it...I don't know why that is but as soon as someone finds a way to blame Bush for that I'm sure we'll all be told all about it.

The deal isn't a back end deal as far as I know. It's a deal between a British company and a UAE company.

We have no control over their negotiations but once they make the deal we have the treasury department oversee the deal to decide if it's appropriate for the new company to do business here...they get other agencies to sign off on it and that's what happened.
Some of them raised concerns and stipulations were put on the deal and it was scheduled to be approved.

As far as I have learned there was nothing unusual about it other than the usual mindless government employee rubber stamping the deal without having the political foresight to recognize that a company with arab in the name would be subject to prejudice and demagoguery if an opportunistic political entity caught wind of it.

Some people have complained that Bush didn't even know about it until it was already approved (which is true and par for the course for a mundane bit of business) and yet they still call it a \"backend deal\"...or \"a secret deal\"....
Seems kind of contradictory doesn't it?!? Either he was up to something sneaky or he didn't even know about it, make up your mind.

Also, it was the UAE company itself and then the Bush administration that announced they wanted to postpone the deal once they realized so many people were so concerned. No news yet on those concerned people regarding the Chinese or Saudi Arabian companies that are already in control of many of our ports.

So now please answer the questions and explain your position and anyone else interested who is reading this please chime in as well.

*Should we cut off arabian airlines from airport access?

*Isn't their airport access at least as dangerous as their having seaport access?

*In fact isn't it even worse considering the fact that arabs actually used aircraft to attack us?

*Shouldn't we tell the Saudi Arabian company and the Chinese company to pack their stuff up and get out of the seaports they are already in control of?

*Or is there something different about UAE arabs that make them a bigger threat?

Will Robinson wrote:The current hysteria aimed at stopping a UAE company from managing the loading and unloading of containers at some of our ports, apparantly only because they are arabs, is not anywhere close to being logical nor does it stand the slightest chance of being effective at improving our security.

The current hysteria over this issue is largely media generated, just like the Cheney hunting incident. I don't know anyone (literally) that is supporting a total ban on forign ownership of our ports. However, the call for a close review of the contract and terms of the deal is not outside the bounds of good sense.

Kilarin wrote:For a slightly different point of view:
I don't think we should have had those ports under the control of a british company. It's only rational to keep certain important security areas under control of citizens (of any race, just so long as they are citizens).

But then, I ALSO think it's foolish that most of our telecommunications companies are now foreign owned.

This is my opinion. When this port security thing went into the news, I learned that a British Company owned our ports. We should just keep ports to ourself, own them by our own companies. I will state again I am not a security fanatic, but I do beleive we should be in control of our ports, not any foreign country. I personally think the UAE is not evil, and I dought they would wage war on us. I just believe that we should be in control of our own ports.

Dakatsu wrote:When this port security thing went into the news, I learned that a British Company owned our ports. We should just keep ports to ourself, own them by our own companies.

Do you believe we should use Americans for *security*, or for everything at our ports?

Americans are still in charge of security regardless of who owns the ports. The only question here is whether Brits or Arabs are allowed to profit from our ports by deciding on protocols, procedures, etc. for unloading cargo. I see nothing wrong with it, though I can understand why protectionists and anti-market people would.

Lothar wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:When this port security thing went into the news, I learned that a British Company owned our ports. We should just keep ports to ourself, own them by our own companies.

Do you believe we should use Americans for *security*, or for everything at our ports?

Americans are still in charge of security regardless of who owns the ports. The only question here is whether Brits or Arabs are allowed to profit from our ports by deciding on protocols, procedures, etc. for unloading cargo. I see nothing wrong with it, though I can understand why protectionists and anti-market people would.

New information I didn't know. I have changed my mind. Let them own it. I didn't know we were going to do the security on these ports. Thanks lothar for telling me that.

Will, ask a question that needs to be answered and I will. I'm looking at the list of them here and they are not very relevant, neither is your example of an airplane. Lot easier to smuggle things through the lines at a shipping port than by air. What's it take to get one whackjob working for DP to look the other way and to know what security protocols are in place to avoid? Al Qaeda has shown patience, they waited years to get 9/11 completely ready and they pulled it off.

I've never said it should never happen, but there has to be some public reckoning about what has gone down. This is your country too, don't you think you should get to hear/see/read how your country is being sold to the top bidder?

And please Will, Lothar, knock it off with making the rest of us sound racist towards Arabs. For the last three years, you have lumped ALL arabs, not just your islamofacists(very stupid word btw) in the same category. You didn't care about Abu Ghraib, torture in Gitmo, or anything else before, why do you suddenly care about our \"ally\" in the Middle East?

Zuruck wrote:Will, ask a question that needs to be answered and I will. I'm looking at the list of them here and they are not very relevant, neither is your example of an airplane. Lot easier to smuggle things through the lines at a shipping port than by air.

Wow! that's the lamest attempt at dodging the essense of this debate possible!
Your position has been one of security and the potential for someone to exploit a weakness in our system.
FACT: Never has there been an attack or plot eneabled by way of our sea ports.
FACT: There has been an actual attack by people using airplanes on our cities to the tune of 3000 dead and extreme damage to our economy.

So for you to claim that an arab entity flying planes into our airports is not a threat but an arab entity managing some of our seaports is a threat is absolutely full of crap! There is no logic to support that position!

What's it take to get one whackjob working for DP to look the other way and to know what security protocols are in place to avoid? Al Qaeda has shown patience, they waited years to get 9/11 completely ready and they pulled it off.

What would it take for them to use a plane and fly it into another building?

And please Will, Lothar, knock it off with making the rest of us sound racist towards Arabs.

Only if you can tell me why the UAE is a concern and the British company wasn't! Can you explain that without using race?

For the last three years, you have lumped ALL arabs, not just your islamofacists(very stupid word btw) in the same category.

Absolutely not true and the word islamo-facsist is used, quite appropriately, to let me distinguish between crazy fundamentalist murderous whacko's and all the other arabs that I don't blame!

English, sometimes a difficult thing to master but certainly in this instance it would serve you well to understand it!

You didn't care about Abu Ghraib, torture in Gitmo, or anything else before, why do you suddenly care about our "ally" in the Middle East?

I certainly did and still do care about any senseless, gratuitous inhumane treatment of prisoners. I believe it took place and the perp's should be punished. I still do support the field officers and grunt soldiers unspoken right to use any force neccessary to protect their fellow soldiers in a wartime scenario.
I believe we have always had soldiers in the field pull enemy aside and beat the crap and intel out of them and I believe that is the way it should be. Obviously it isn't our declared policy and the politicians will have to do their little snake dance in front of cameras when ever the practice comes to light...too bad for them. I'd rather have a dozen embarrassed politicians than one more dead soldier from a roadside bomb!
Every country knows what really happens when war breaks out and this war should have been no different but the command structure broke down, the pentagon allowed the cia spooks to run the prisons and if you can prove Bush ordered it then march Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush all off to jail! I'll cheer your acomplishments but I'll never tell a soldier in the middle of a war that he can't twist some enemies arm off if he has reason to believe the result will be saving even one soldiers life. War is ugly and imperfect and people must resort to basic survival instincts. I would never ask a man to go into that and then restrain that instinct.
You train them as best you can and then you bear the responsibility for sending him there if he fails.

That's what happens when diplomacy fails and governments start killing people as a means to an end. Your very existence, our countries very existence was built on that, learn to accept your place in the food chain.

*Shouldn't we tell the Saudi Arabian company and the Chinese company to pack their stuff up and get out of the seaports they are already in control of?

Yes! (I'm running a bit behind in this thread) I don't think any foreign country should own property here. They should show up with products, drop them off, pick up what they want, and leave. If it's a service industry, then they can rent the property from american companies/citizens, and then ship over some people, or better yet, hire Americans...

I haven't dodged a question yet. You dont' quite seem to understand what I'm saying, what is wrong with a little delay to dust up on exactly what's going on? You think this is some sort of benign little deal, what if it were the FAA being sold? Dont' you feel as if there are just enough questions to at least hold a few hearings on it? Don't you think it's America's business?

The main difference between the British company the UAE is the british company was/is not government controlled. All of those countries that own ports or malls or whatever are private, independent investors. This is the first government controlled company to own US ports. Take off the partisan blinders for two seconds Will and just let people ask a few questions. Don't know if you've forgot but in a democracy, one person doesn't get to make all the rules. G.W. forgot that as did most of the republicans in this country.

Zuruck wrote:I haven't dodged a question yet. You dont' quite seem to understand what I'm saying, what is wrong with a little delay to dust up on exactly what's going on? You think this is some sort of benign little deal, what if it were the FAA being sold? Dont' you feel as if there are just enough questions to at least hold a few hearings on it? Don't you think it's America's business?

The main difference between the British company the UAE is the british company was/is not government controlled. All of those countries that own ports or malls or whatever are private, independent investors. This is the first government controlled company to own US ports. Take off the partisan blinders for two seconds Will and just let people ask a few questions. Don't know if you've forgot but in a democracy, one person doesn't get to make all the rules. G.W. forgot that as did most of the republicans in this country.

Zuruck you're completely wrong on all counts!!

First, I never objected to the delay, and as I pointed out the UAE was the first to announce it should be delayed to allow further review followed by the Bush team. So while we wait for those ever diligent congressworms to do some quick polling to see where their respective constituents stand on the issue we can continue to debate the merits of the reaction ourselves can't we?

Second, I'm attacking republicans and democrats here. They are both trying to posture for constituents by playing to their home state xenophobes and bigot voters. If you think the UAE is some kind of unique security threat then you are wrong no matter what flavor you vote for so get off the partisan nonsense right now. In fact check a mirror becasue if you weren't so hell bent on finding fault with anything-Bush you would be able to answer the question objectively.

Third, this isn't the first foriegn government owned port terminal.

You've probably heard of China.
You know, the country that has actually had their Gen. Xiong threaten to bring a nuclear weapon into a sea port in California and nuke us in retaliation if we don't let them take over Taiwan?!?

China the country that has officially announced that it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when they would wage war against the United States!

China, the country that has been caught, more than once using their port access for smuggling in AK47 rifles and other military weaponery into california to sell the stuff to gangs in L.A.

China the country that shipped lots of ammunition to the Taliban and even some chinese fighters were killed fighting along side the Taliban.

China...a foriegn country, a sworn enemy and communist country where the state owns and controls everything and they already own port terminals in the U.S. and have for many years!!!

Also Saudi Arabia, a government run by an arab royal family just like the way the UAE is run by a royal family.
Saudi Arabia, home to 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and Ossama bin Laddins family.
Ossama is from Saudi Arabia and many of his al Queda henchmen are as well.
Saudi Arabia a country that already owns terminals in american sea ports!!

Fourth, are you starting to smell the ownage here or are you holding back your knowledge of the facts until a later date? Are you just sucking me in playing dumb?

So, besides your misrepresentation of the facts consider this:
If this hysteria is truly about the sudden discovery of foriegn access to our ports (apparantly airports are no longer a concern... ) then the reaction has revealed the most impotent, short sighted, ignorant, ineffectual bunch of bumbling moronic representatives and journalism ever mustered!!

On the other hand, if it's just that we're in an election cycle and politicians are merely singling this one case out so they might prop it up and pose with it in front of the enabling press corp so they can stir up the xenophobic, anti-arab, knee-jerk voter support, puffing up their chests and saying
'Look at me, I'm independant and strong on security' well then it makes sense because all those other port security threats are just so last year.

(Zuruck, don't take the smack talk to heart, I'm just having fun with it because if I don't have a laugh about it I'll have to cry)

Here it is in a nut shell:
There is a security problem at our ports and borders but not because the UAE might manage a few of them.
It's because we let corrupt idiots manage the security of our country and we let egotistical, primadonna celebrities pose as journalists.

So the blame is all on us.
The important question is, what are you going to do about it? Re-elect them?

Zuruck wrote:You dont' quite seem to understand what I'm saying

Coming from the guy in E&C who most consistanly misrepresents others' positions, that means a lot.

It's funny Lothar, I haven't cared a bit about what you've said in the past, nor do I now, but out of respect to Birdseye and the rest here on the board, I tried to maintain my disdain towards you. I'll continue, nice try though. Shouldn't you be doing abortion protesting or something?

I used to be against abortion, then I saw you at KC lan, I changed my mind.

Will, what are we even arguing about now? Let's get some pitchforks and demand satisfaction on the footsteps of the capital. Doubt that day will ever come though, if Washington smelled something like that they'd probably renig on that whole 1st amendment thing just so we couldn't. It's sad when your representatives don't represent you anymore, they represent a party and they don't answer to anyone. Yet people like Lothar still vote for them. Complete and total idiots.