It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism, yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm. That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.
Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Good news, USA is being screwed over.
Originally posted by Kaotik68
The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism, yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm. That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.
Just because someone has been a good ally to us does not mean anything when it comes to this deal. Having inside knowledge of port operations in the U.S. is something that does not need to happen here. It just does not make sense, and will only lead to something bad happening. How can our government preach security all the time, and constantly say we need improvements in security, and then go through with a deal like this? Quit making it into a racist issue and look at the facts.
Besides which, the UAE is an ALLY of the US in the War on Terrror, and an arab nation at that. There is no evidence that this company is at all connected to terrorism, and the sale is of a foreign company to another foreign company. There's not a single reason to stop the sale, other than that they're arabs, and apparently arabs are supposed to be evil or something.
So the White House should've said 'you're a wonderful ally...one that has been extremely helpful to us in the on-going war on terror...but you're Arabs so we can't let this deal go ahead'? That's why the average Joe and Jane on the streets, in the US, is against the deal, because they hear 'Arab' and they think 'OMgodZ0r...Arab, means....TERRORISTS!'
Originally posted by Kaotik68
So the White House should've said 'you're a wonderful ally...one that has been extremely helpful to us in the on-going war on terror...but you're Arabs so we can't let this deal go ahead'? That's why the average Joe and Jane on the streets, in the US, is against the deal, because they hear 'Arab' and they think 'OMgodZ0r...Arab, means....TERRORISTS!'
There you go again....I never said BUT YOU'RE ARABS........that does not have a damn thing to do with it. God you are thick headed! You just do not get it. The UAE does not have anything remotely close to the security that we have in place now (granted it is nowhere near enough). So that makes it a breeding ground for terrorists of all descents, they could be green, or red and it would not matter! And as for the average Joe and Jane on the streets.....they are alot smarter than you my friend, because when it comes to this port deal you are the minority.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
well lets put it this way. Osama was an ally during the soviet invasion...backfire. saddam was an ally during war with iran....backfire. i dont know i just think allies arent the most reliable people. i dont agree with any country actually owning any ports or anything to that extent where something could internationally enter the country. i would trust britian before a middle eastern nation because frankly, britians part of the world isnt as unstable as a middle eastern nation is. they arent going to come out attacking us or turning on us, or at least its alot less likely then a middle eastern nation would turn on us.
Originally posted by Lanton
How can you not be for trade-protectionism, at least in this case, if you're not just against this deal going ahead because we're dealing with an Arab firm here.
Originally posted by Lanton
The UAE's been the US's most important ally in the Middle East in the on-going war on terrorism,
Originally posted by Lanton
yet i'm guessing you either wouldn't know that or you're sticking to your guns simply because it's an Arab firm.
That makes you, sir, ignorant and a racist.
Originally posted by Lanton
So you're for trade protectionism, right?
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by Lanton
So you're for trade protectionism, right?
NEXT!
Originally posted by Lanton
Gonna tackle the other points i made in that post?
Under your world view, it would then be appropriate to outsource our boarder crossings...our airports....our military...
What's the difference? Unless you are a complete idiot, some restraints on trade are appropriate. Otherwise, why have any business law at all? Perhaps Lockhead Martin should sell their weapons technology to anyone they feel like... Would you support that under the name of free trade?
Originally posted by Lanton
How about the US just completely shut itself off from the rest of the world, give up on the foreign investment, into the US, that comes with the US's business connections to Europe, the Middle East and Asia? Would that satisfy you?
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by Lanton
Gonna tackle the other points i made in that post?
You mean the ones you added AFTER the first question you posted? Sure, why not...
I'll start my answer by reposting the question I asked above that you conveniently avoided:
Under your world view, it would then be appropriate to outsource our boarder crossings...our airports....our military...
What's the difference? Unless you are a complete idiot, some restraints on trade are appropriate. Otherwise, why have any business law at all? Perhaps Lockhead Martin should sell their weapons technology to anyone they feel like... Would you support that under the name of free trade?
Originally posted by Lanton
How about the US just completely shut itself off from the rest of the world, give up on the foreign investment, into the US, that comes with the US's business connections to Europe, the Middle East and Asia? Would that satisfy you?
Did I say that? Of course not.... But your dishonest, or feeble, brain is incapable of understanding anything less than extremes, on either end of the scale, now, isn't it?
[edit on 26-2-2006 by loam]