Good on you Bush

**rez** · March 11, 2006, 07:49 PM

I was watching the news lately and i saw that George bush had desperately fought to let Arabic companies take control of some key American Ports. And he was beaten into submission by congress because of security risks. I for one never expected to see Bush on the side of Arabic companies or free trade for that matter. but i salute George bush for fighting for his beliefs and for free trade.

Awaiting someone to tell me that GW had some secret reason to want the dubai guys in control...or that it wasnt congress who argued against him - but that isnt the point

**Zuwxiv** · March 11, 2006, 08:02 PM

Realistically, there weren't any increased security threats. This may be the first thing the government has done to the ports that had anything to do with security, in fact. They haven't improved any security since 911.

But politically, it was stupid for Bush to support it. The Republicans only have strength in their "Security" approval ratings, and it was stupid for the President to do something like this.

**Sétanta** · March 11, 2006, 09:59 PM

I, a republican, disagreed with Bush on this thing.
My Uncle, a Member of the DNC, agreed with Bush.

what the hell is this world coming to. Liberals supporting Bush and Conservatives, well, not.

**Siblesz** · March 12, 2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mudd

I, a republican, disagreed with Bush on this thing.
My Uncle, a Member of the DNC, agreed with Bush.

what the hell is this world coming to. Liberals supporting Bush and Conservatives, well, not.

The same reason why Republicans striked down the League of Nations in 1918 (that possibly led to WWII). They've been scared of foreigners ever since the Spanish-American War. Republicans have to understand that the world is not inhabited by wild, untamed monkeys of the Amazon (though I can argue that it is). "Foreign people? BAD BAD! Me no like foreign!"

Freedom fries, anyone?

**nahirean** · March 12, 2006, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Mudd

I, a republican, disagreed with Bush on this thing.
My Uncle, a Member of the DNC, agreed with Bush.

what the hell is this world coming to. Liberals supporting Bush and Conservatives, well, not.

That demostrates perfectley the flaw of polarized thinking. Quick labels like "Republican" or "Democrat" do not suffice. People should be considering every issue independently and not making a choice because "My party does." Which it looks like you have done in this example. Sadly, most people do not. It makes things so much easier for the politicians.

**Kanaric** · March 13, 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mudd

I, a republican, disagreed with Bush on this thing.
My Uncle, a Member of the DNC, agreed with Bush.

what the hell is this world coming to. Liberals supporting Bush and Conservatives, well, not.

Actually liberals aren't supporting bush. My parents are as liberal as the term defines it and they are highly against it.

It really doesn't matter who controls it, they can still easily smuggle a nuke into the country if it were the UK or the Taliban, makes no difference.

**Sétanta** · March 13, 2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Kanaric

Actually liberals aren't supporting bush. My parents are as liberal as the term defines it and they are highly against it.

It really doesn't matter who controls it, they can still easily smuggle a nuke into the country if it were the UK or the Taliban, makes no difference.

IN general the whole political system is all screwy right now.

Republicans and Democrats standing together...well kinda (standing in the same room at least)

**internationalist** · March 13, 2006, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mudd

IN general the whole political system is all screwy right now.

Republicans and Democrats standing together...well kinda (standing in the same room at least)

The Democratic PArty=

**Erik** · March 12, 2006, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Zuwxiv

But politically, it was stupid for Bush to support it. The Republicans only have strength in their "Security" approval ratings, and it was stupid for the President to do something like this.

There is also a thing called international politics.
In international politics it would be suicide if he didn't back Dubai in this matter.

For one thing: Arab countries would kick out American oil companies because of "security reasons".

**LSJ** · March 12, 2006, 11:27 AM

If I were the leader of an Arab country I would refuse to let American oil companies (especially Bush's) buy any rigs or get permits for digging, for security reasons.
It was good that he supported it, but the congress were evil. What threat would the democratic westernized UAE pose to America? And in any case, immigrants would not be working there - it would be local Americans working at the port only under Arab leadership.
If Bush didn't support the deal then he would be strengthening the bad feelings toward America among the Islamic youth around Iraq.

**eurolord** · March 12, 2006, 12:49 PM

Hi,

Security is not the only reason. The Iraqies were given the opportunity to take over the ports in southern Iraq and totally trashed it. They have no idea at all of running a port. No idea at all.

They started to remove the destroyed ships from the port, only to drop them onto the quayside thereby preventing ships from docking and unloading their cargoes. This went on for months with little or nothing being done. In the end, the British had to stand in and sort it out bacause of the loss of revenue.

Another thing westerners don't realise is how the tribal system effects things such as the efficient running of ports and the economy in general.

The tribal system is the main cause of the problems in Raq and prevents people who want to improve Iraq from doing so. If you are from the wrong tribe, then you don't get the job or any contracts. Inter tribal jealosy prevents work being done and causes very serious problems. This problem is from the grass roots right up to the upper levels of government.

How do I know? - well, I was there and saw it all happening.

Eurolord

**rez** · March 12, 2006, 02:34 PM

You do realise it was the united arab emirates and dubai (?) who were going to be in control of the ports not Iraq right? Iraq is in an extrremely volatile state at the moment. control over ports is adding one thing after another into an already busy mans to do list.

The more stable arab states could easily cope with a port leadership contract.

**imb39** · March 12, 2006, 02:40 PM

Also... and this might shock some people... Americans will still actually do the work in the ports still. In terms of 'on the ground operations' the 'Arabic' effect will be minimals. However, they might cut costs etc. but that's an issue of capitalism rather than any particular aspect of the bosses being Arabic.

It seems rather odd that the proponents of free trade - the ones who lecture the rest of the world - only like it if it's in one direction. Ho hum. And, before anyone accuses me of some anti American bias (which I may have, I don't think so) I also accuse the EU of having the the same protectionist attitudes - though we don't seem so concerned that P&O has been taken over by Arabs. Fair enough, that's the market at play.

**Yorkshireman** · March 12, 2006, 02:51 PM

Dubai has since agreed to cede the control of the ports to a "US entity" to diffuse the situation.

**MasterAdnin** · March 12, 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by rez

I was watching the news lately and i saw that George bush had desperately fought to let Arabic companies take control of some key American Ports. And he was beaten into submission by congress because of security risks. I for one never expected to see Bush on the side of Arabic companies or free trade for that matter. but i salute George bush for fighting for his beliefs and for free trade.

Awaiting someone to tell me that GW had some secret reason to want the dubai guys in control...or that it wasnt congress who argued against him - but that isnt the point

This will decrease hostilities between the two countries and was a good idea by Bush because most of our troops, our meaning American forces, are in Iraq and are close by Saudi Arabia, not implying that they would do anything, but they might be able to help in the matter. Overall, seems like a good move by President Bush.

Adnan

**Last Roman** · March 12, 2006, 08:43 PM

while the company themselves were clean, I glad they didn't get the deal. It would have been easy for any terrorist to inflitrate. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house

**GambleFish** · March 12, 2006, 08:51 PM

Only 5% of ports have security measures that have sufficient anyways, I think... So really, there is not a case against Dubai when we don't even bother to gaurd our own ports.

Dubai has been our firm ally in the Middle East for years, an economic hub and a center of rational thought and stability for a long time. The UAE is probably the most advanced Middle Eastern country, both politically and economically. We have gotten a lot of support from them for a long time, and we automatically drop our stance for economic freedom and dump on Dubai...

Ah well, I believe we need tighter port and border security anyways.... You do realise that for terrorists, it would be very easy to fly to central america and then just go over the border? Apparently several iranians have done just that in recent years.... There are tons of security flaws in america, we just like to take the chance to scream at a middle eastern country for daring to try to practice economic freedom in America. What audacity!

**Honeohvovohaestse** · March 12, 2006, 09:03 PM

Letting money go to the middle east means people with opposite or different ideals will have more, more say, more money, more power, and that threatens our redneck way of life.

**RZZZA** · March 12, 2006, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by rez

I for one never expected to see Bush on the side of Arabic companies or free trade for that matter.

Why not? The Bush family has been doing business with Arabs for generations now.

What I think is that politically, it was a horrible move. But then again, what do you expect? Bush is not a politician. I'm not sure what he is...jsut some ignorant recently sober hick who finds himself in the unlikely scenario of being the leader of the country, I think. Considering that the UAE neighbors countries we are at war (or nearly at war) with (seperated by a sea, though)...and the fact that these people from the U.A.E. look so much like the people who we are now suspicious of...these are the reasons why I think it was (yet another) terrible political move. Theres no reason he couldnt have picked another, less auspicious, country to do this ports security thing...I got the impression that him happening to "cherry pick" the U.A.E. was his way of flipping the finger to all of America. Good thing the other branches found their balls at least on this issue, and didnt follow Bush like sheep again.

edit-didnt a few of the 9/11 hijackers come from the U.A.E.? yeah...

Again I say there was absolutely no good reason why bush couldnt have made a less suspicious decision than picking a middle eastern country to guard our ports. People in America are finally starting to be wary of Bush, and no the majority of the country is not ready to trust Cowboy George with yet another F up-in-the-making.