1. #76
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now
    No one at my house (including me) thinks this is the right thing right now. I don't know many who defend this idea. For the record I never said I did agree with it. I just love watching the left dance around trying to justify their constantly shifting views on security issues. Just having a little fun!
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    There's left...there's right...and there's $$$$$$$.

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default Yo 4th

    Just keepin it real Brother ... I was worried that the westside was gettin a lil' "soft"..
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  4. #79
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    There are many laws that deal with foreign ownership in this country.
    There are laws that deal with the oversight of these ownerships.
    And still, there are laws that deal with what foreigners and people not born in this country can or can't do.
    When you think about it, there have been many businesses owned by foreigners coming to this country to make a life for them and their families.
    I don't view Arabs or anyone else coming to this country any differently than the Irish or Chinese or Vietnamese or South Africans who have been coming to this country for centuries. So; though I will not turn and run in the other direction if I see a Muslim coming towards me, I DO look at them with some curiosity. Sorry; but too many of them have been blowing themselves up and taking people like me with them.
    If Dubai running the ports is such a good deal, then fine. We put 1000 troops at the ports, charge THEM for the manpower and inspect more than 6% of the containers coming into this country.
    If you find this somewhat paranoid, then blame the news media.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  5. #80
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Another interesting perspective from Lou Dobbs

    An excerpt:

    "Bush said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to "step up and explain why." Well, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country's enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. The money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And if those aren't good enough reasons, I would just suggest I'm at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons."
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by E229Lt
    Why does this have to be a Left vs Right debate. How about a few people just give their gut feeling, you know, what YOU think. Not how each side is spinning it.

    For me, I'm just not comfortable with the idea because that little voice in my head is yelling really loud right now.
    There is no one on these forums who is more of a loyal conservative then I am. But there are a couple of things I know for sure:

    1. I am tired of being told that, because I do not support this deal, I am a racist. I do not for one minute believe that this company is tied to terrorists. I do not believe for one minute that the U.A.E. is a state sponsor of terrorists. I do not believe for one minute that every Arab is a terrorist. BUT, every single person who crashed a plane on 9/11 was Arab. Every single person who played a part in blowing up the USS Cole was Arab. Every single person who has been placing IED's in Iraq targeting our military personnel is an Arab.

    2. Why would you risk opening the hole in port security even further? This company won't run "port security" per se, but they are going to play an integral part in it. They will also be hiring and firing people. This will create the possibility of infiltration at the highest level. I do not believe that there would be complicity, but the risk is too damn high.

    3. Where this becomes a left vs. right issue is the scum bag liberals that have now jumped on this bandwagon in a transparent and feeble attempt to make themselves appear tough on homeland security. This attempt will, with no doubt, backfire miserably.

    4. I am tired of being told "There is no American company that wants to do this job". Bull****. If there is no US company that wants to do this (interestingly the same argument they use on the other issue I vehemently oppose the Administration-illegal immigration) than give me a little while. As soon as I can secure some SBA funding, I'll do it.

    5. My little voice is screaming, too, Lou.

  7. #82
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You liberals are in 100% agreement with Ann Coulter! How does that make you feel?
    SO, THREE MUSLIMS WALK INTO A PORT
    by Ann Coulter
    February 22, 2006


    The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story.

    But Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."

    Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

    First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.

    There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

    Even four years after 9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."

    That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.

    So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.

    President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.

    Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

    The Bush administration defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive." Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception? Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9/11. Yes, now I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.

    The University of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons even though the kiss-*** editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing them as "bigoted and insensitive."

    That was still not enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened" by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini." Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering Illini."

    Fox News' Bill O'Reilly refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor," saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"? Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)

    Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.

    Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!

    Taking to heart the lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons. Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down. And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh and I'll take the San Diego port, please.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

  8. #83
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    Where this becomes a left vs. right issue is the scum bag liberals that have now jumped on this bandwagon in a transparent and feeble attempt to make themselves appear tough on homeland security. This attempt will, with no doubt, backfire miserably.
    This was a good post until I read this part. Then you dissolved into your typical knee jerk reaction with a statement that has no basis in any type of fact.

    Especially considering how it is this GOP administration and Congress who have been in charge for most of the last ten years and Homeland Security isn't any better now than it was then.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    I don't care what anyone thinks about the details...the same president that led us to invade a nation that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on America, based on lies, half-truths, and flimsy "intel", is now selling off our ports to a nation that has a running history of supporting terrorism. All major Saudi companies are under heavy influence by their government, which is a monarchy with a miserable human rights record, and doesn't even begin to resemble a democracy (one of Bush's much ballyhooed talking points when dealing with the Middle East). Half the nation openly supports terrorism against the U.S. and other western nations. The only difference is that the Saudi government and the rich shieks that control it are still wheeling and dealing Bush's way. And this goes on while the anti-American sentiment continues to grow in the rest of the nation.
    Bush is a liar and anyone who still supports him is either grossly uninformed, or simply clinging to the party line because they just can't bring themselves to admit they've been duped. Freedom, democracy, and stopping "terrorism" are not what Bush and his corporate imperialists care about. It's the power and control of resources. We've propped up tinpan despots throughout history regardless of their atrocious behavior, so long as they play the game our way...and the game is all about power and money; not freedom and human rights.
    Last edited by ThNozzleman; 02-26-2006 at 10:49 AM.

  10. #85
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    This was a good post until I read this part. Then you dissolved into your typical knee jerk reaction with a statement that has no basis in any type of fact.
    It's all he has left, SC...it's all he has left. Pitiful, if you think about it.

  11. #86
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
    It's all he has left, SC...it's all he has left. Pitiful, if you think about it.
    How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?

  12. #87
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?
    Just as well as the, "we are doing this to liberate the Iraqi peoples, and it won't cost the US taxpayer a dime" argument. Which is true. It is costing a lot more than a dime.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #88
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?
    In debate class they do a fun exercise where you have to make the argument for the case you don't believe in...

    You obviously don't think this war is about oil, but I'd love to see you make the case for it being so...what do you say?

    Or...at the very least, tell me again why we are really fighting this war.

  14. #89
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    You obviously don't think this war is about oil,

    Well, to even begin such an exercise, we'd need to know what "about oil" means.

    Is it "about oil" in that stability in that region is globally important idea?

    Is it "about oil" in that oil was a source of income for Saddam's regime?

    Is it "about oil" in that U.N. Sanctions against it's sale was making the west look like a bunch of cruel child starvers?

    Is it "about oil" on the thought that some other corporation wanted to control the profits from it?

    Is it "about oil" in that there was global geo-politics involved for long term control of the resource? Which geo-political set? With the French & Russians? With the Indians & Chinese?

    Is it "about oil" in that revenues from oil could have been used to rebuild Iraq?

    Is it "about oil" in that we wanted to make Iraq our primary source of oil, replacing if my memory serves me right in order the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Venezula as our primary sources of oil?

    Is it "about oil" in that relatively little mideastern oil comes to the U.S. so we wanted to control the stream being sold to other industrialized nations?

    Is it "about oil" in that stable supplies and low prices (but most of all, predictability over price) is important to guide business investments?

    The "about oil" charge can be taken in any number of ways. Very few, if any, of which make any sense.

    While I'd be glad to debate from the other point of view, I have to say it's so counter intuitive and illogical to me I don't even know where you start on most of the scenarios I posted above. I honestly don't know which one people mean by "about oil" to even chose one to try and pick to debate because I don't know what they mean by "about oil" -- there where ways on their face of it cheaper and more stable to achieve most of those objectives.

  15. #90
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Yeah, Right..........

    I've grown to dislike these threads. My second and last comment on this one is: We're Americans, and we need to put ourselves first. As far as I'm concerned we're the best, biggest, baddest, whatever you want to use here. I have no problem with a war over oil. I don't think that's why we went over there in the first place, but since we're there, let's make the best of it. I'm fed up with the continuing B.S. over politics in the middle east, so turn it into a barren sand dune and call it a day.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  16. #91
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods
    I've grown to dislike these threads. My second and last comment on this one is: We're Americans, and we need to put ourselves first. As far as I'm concerned we're the best, biggest, baddest, whatever you want to use here. I have no problem with a war over oil. I don't think that's why we went over there in the first place, but since we're there, let's make the best of it. I'm fed up with the continuing B.S. over politics in the middle east, so turn it into a barren sand dune and call it a day.
    I'll echo those sentiments, Harv!
    Graybeards Unite!
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  17. #92
    MembersZone Subscriber
    E229Lt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Unfortunately, it appears Iraq is headed into a civil war. But as history will show, most democracies went through at least one.

    Soon, it will be time for us to get out of the way and let the Iraqis decide their future.

  18. #93
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Unfortunately, it appears Iraq is headed into a civil war. But as history will show, most democracies went through at least one.
    So did a lot of nations that aren't democracies, too.
    Soon, it will be time for us to get out of the way and let the Iraqis decide their future.
    We should never have gotten in their way in the first place.
    Or...at the very least, tell me again why we are really fighting this war.
    Now you're talking. Poor ol' delusional George. I can tell you one thing...there are still massive amounts of oil in Iraq, but there are ZERO WMD's. But, hey; Bush knew exactly where they were. I mean, they KNEW he absolutely had them, right? Heh, heh! What joke. I can show you nearly a hundred years of western nations meddling in that area of the world, too...and the reasons why they've always been there are sure as hell not to help anyone but themselves to the oil. I'm still waiting on hero Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil. You know, one reason Ol' George is on my ignore list is because my ribs just couldn't handle the abuse of laughing so hard.

  19. #94
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Now you're talking. Poor ol' delusional George. I can tell you one thing...there are still massive amounts of oil in Iraq, but there are ZERO WMD's. But, hey; Bush knew exactly where they were. I mean, they KNEW he absolutely had them, right? Heh, heh! What joke. I can show you nearly a hundred years of western nations meddling in that area of the world, too...and the reasons why they've always been there are sure as hell not to help anyone but themselves to the oil. I'm still waiting on hero Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil. You know, one reason Ol' George is on my ignore list is because my ribs just couldn't handle the abuse of laughing so hard.
    You are pathetic. You are one of those who tries to answer any issue with your utter hatred of George Bush. This is why the liberals will make no inroads in this election year and the next Presidential election. They have no plan other than "George Bush lied"! The US people have told the libs for a long time that they do not care for the negative view of a very succesful country.

    It is also notable that you are unable to formulate an argument that is not rife with insults and personal attacks. The recent thread on Christian fire fighters was a good example. Then you act like you are somehow intellectually superior to people on here because you sit on the opposite side of the issue. Again, that is counter to the fact that you are unable to sustain logical, fact-included, debate.

    You have been provided with facts before that showed that US "intellectual elites" were against getting involved in the war against Nazi Germany, too. History has shown that it was the most noble of fights. I am confident that, when all the information is in, history will show the same thing about this war in Iraq.

    But keep going with your hate for this country, this government and this President. It is evident, you also hate yourself. As I said before, it must suck going through life so filled with anger and hate.

  20. #95
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, DE, USA
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    Isn't the UAE our allies? Aren't they part of Coalition of the Willing?
    Lets remember one thing here, that our illustrious leaders have whitewashed for the sake of the almighty dollar. These guys are MUSLIMS and ARABS, and no matter what they tell you, ANYONE who is not one of them is an INFIDEL. Don't think for a second that if the situation presented itself that they wouldn't turn on our FRIENDSHIP in the blink of an eye.

  21. #96
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Isn't the UAE our allies? Aren't they part of Coalition of the Willing?
    Yeah...maybe the top .0001% that rules the nation with an iron fist; so long as we're putting their oil in our SUV's. The rest I'm not so sure about. All that money the terrorist orgainzations thrive on has to come from somewhere.

  22. #97
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,678

    Default

    1. Bush is not selling the port. He doesn't own it, blame the people that own it now and are selling it.

    2. MAYBE, with the U.A.E. owning the ports, the U.S. might actually put some real security at the ports finally instead of the FARCE that people believe exists now.

    3. Side question, is there anyone out there that really believes airport security is for real? Having just travelled in and out of the country, my personal experience is that it is still a joke. I was amazed how easy it was to get on a plane and get back into this country without ever passing through a working metal detector or any kind of search.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  23. #98
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil.

    Um, no.

    Well, most likely, no.

    As you typed that, Venezula is spending hundreds of millions rebuilding refineries in Cuba.

    Spanish, Chinese, Indian, and Norwegian companies all have exploration programs underway.

    Hmmm, What part of the U.S. is our largest oil producer? Would it be the Gulf of Mexico.

    Hmmm, What part of the gulf is legally prohibited from drilling? Would it be those parts near Florida.

    Hmmm, where is Cuba?

    Sarcasm aside, industry guesstimates is by 2015 Cuba will be producing 700,000 barrels a day, about 4x their domestic needs.

    Not a huge amount -- about 1/5 what Iraq produced PRE 1990, about 1/2 of what it does today. About 1/8 what the U.S. produces. (Yes boys and girls, your math is right...the U.S. pumps more oil today domestically than Iraq did at the height of it's production....)

    It's development has been held back partly by the long term embargo keeping the drillers most familiar with the area (the Americans) out of it. Oh wait, it's oil, let's drop that silly embargo and help my business buddies...

    And partly because the deeper water development costs, unknown risks of quality & quantity of the wells till the first ones start producing, and business risks in a nation that might nationalize private industry again means it hasn't been as attractive for foreign investment till now.

  24. #99
    MembersZone Subscriber
    EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    If Castro would get with the program and die off, Cuba would explode with development. I truly think that the US will lift most or all sanctions once he's gone, there are simply too many resources to be tapped and other countries are getting first crack at them...

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EFD840
    If Castro would get with the program and die off, Cuba would explode with development. I truly think that the US will lift most or all sanctions once he's gone, there are simply too many resources to be tapped and other countries are getting first crack at them...
    More American schizophrenia when it comes to foreign policy. Why are we waiting for Castro to die? We didn't wait for Mao Zedong to die before we started trading with China. And as commies go, the PRC was far worse than Castro.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. An open letter to George Wendt
    By FlyingKiwi in forum Hurricane Katrina & Rita Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2005, 08:37 AM
  2. George A. Wendt-Boonton, NJ Fire Department
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-29-2005, 06:27 PM
  3. Another George Wendt Thread; or When will there be a change?
    By blancety in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 01:10 AM
  4. Calling George Wendt
    By glowpop in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2002, 09:21 AM
  5. This is all getting too heavy for me
    By EastKyFF in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-28-2002, 09:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register