Jump to content

Bush has lost it


Recommended Posts

Dilapadator was a made up word to parody your attempt to read my mind. You don't know me or what my belifs are beyond this particular issue as can I you.

Then your stand on this iisue contradicts your profession here. I'm a Vietnam vet, U.S.M.C., and as one former military to another you should know that the media is not giving the entire picture of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I sure do. I also know that they don't show the good things either, and, don't reflect how soldiers really feel which is 'fuck this shit' grumbling in private to 'yes, we will kick ass for America' in front of the platoon Commander. In the end, they are there for each other and are proud of it, even if they do decide not to go back and don't re up. They serve neither party except, possibly the right as they do develop a hatred for the people whom they are there to serve and get desnensitized and develop contempt for same.

As an American citizen I, and a majority of my countrymen, do not want this deal to go through. We do not feel comfortable with it and the Congress as well as that bungling crack whore from Crawford should adhere to the desire of the American people.

As a former soldier you know you don't get to vote on what flavor of juice you get in the rations. He was voted in for a four year term by a majority and that is what makes it a republic.

We don't care about Bush and his Arab Puppet Masters nor the frigging bottom line! It's OUR country and OUR security that concerns us.

You have not provided anything other than conjecture as to what those security concerns are with this deal though.

Even the term "terrorist" should send chills down your spine... can't you see how wide a brush it is? They can paint anything with it!

Even you know there are terrorists otherwise you wouldn't be concerned about security with this port deal. As for being friends with Saudis and whatever, do you have any understanding of how close those governments are and were to colapsing due to the radical islamic forces working within them? It's more than money to them - it's survival. And, the US has to back them up otherwise Iran will be the easiest problem to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but wasn't eligible because he only had 300 of the 500 hours of flight training required.

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press)

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Bush hid, I have no doubt. Other than not providing an example for a soldier I don't see what the problem is though. Many presidents did not serve and one comes to mind that outright dodged sevice and yet, sent men to serve. And then others, who did serve, can't lead with conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of follow up points:

1) Lileks follow up article

2) Again, I'm not a racist and my opinions on this matter do not stem from racism. I don't have a problem with the people of UAE, I have a problem with their government, a problem which is unrelated to the racial makeup of it's constituents. Essentially, I don't trust the government of the UAE in it's resolve to stand firm against terrorism, and all of my posts are in line with this central issue.

3) I'm not sure why Drew has been so emphatic about the point that DP World will be managing the ports but not owning the land they sit on. The practical difference between a manager and an owner/manager is the piece of paper in this case. Or does having a deed confer some special powers to the land holder that allows them to act with less accountability? Help me out.

4) I'd just like to try to expand the parameters of the argument a little bit. Presumably, the people who are arguing in favour of the ports deal in this thread wouldn't mind foreign companies managing Canadian ports. If it's reasonable for a foreign company to manage our ports, is it not also reasonable for a foreign company to manage (or own) the airlines that connect our cities? Does the same logic not also apply to cabotage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I don't feel comfortable about the whole thing, but some of this seems to be media hysteria.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news...rtsecurity.html

Shipping industry is baffled by port uproar

Experts say port security is handled by the government, and foreign companies already control a large share of the cargo-handling business.

By Evelyn Iritani, Nicole, Ronald D. White

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Trade and security experts said concerns about the transfer of U.S. port operations from Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World were ill-founded because port security is handled by U.S. government agencies, and because foreign companies already control a large share of the U.S. cargo-handling business.

Critics of the $6.8 billion deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to run cargo operations in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Newark, N.J., say the United Arab Emirates warrants greater scrutiny because of its connections to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But shipping specialists and business leaders contend that efforts to sink the deal were undermining relations with the Emirates, a key regional ally and primary staging base for the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experts say port security is handled by the government....

Given the current U.S. government's track record, that's probaly a far more worrisome point than who manages the facilities. :unsure:

To be sure, the continuing sorry state of port security is a major blot on the administration's record. True, port security has been weak for decades, but 911 should have prompted serious changes, changes that haven't happened. It's almost like they want terrorists to sneak something through. Fresh meat for the conspiracy minded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be sure, the continuing sorry state of port security is a major blot on the administration's record. True, port security has been weak for decades, but 911 should have prompted serious changes, changes that haven't happened. It's almost like they want terrorists to sneak something through. Fresh meat for the conspiracy minded...

Perhaps the U.S. government is too busy covering up evidence of Saddam's WMD in Iraq? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but wasn't eligible because he only had 300 of the 500 hours of flight training required.

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press)

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Initially.

He enlisted in TANG (probably because he wanted to follow his Dad, who was also a fighter pilot). Then when in TANG, he eventually volunteered to go to Vietnam.

His commanding officer said this was so.

The NY Times is likely STILL on this tory and if they had found proof he refused to go to Vietnam, it would be front page headlines for a month straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initially.

He enlisted in TANG (probably because he wanted to follow his Dad, who was also a fighter pilot). Then when in TANG, he eventually volunteered to go to Vietnam.

His commanding officer said this was so.

The whole story.

Four months before enlisting, Bush reported at Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts to take the Air Force Officers Qualification Test. While scoring 25 percent for pilot aptitude – "about as low as you could get and be accepted," according to Martin – and 50 percent for navigator aptitude in his initial testing, he scored 95 percent on questions designed to reflect "officer quality," compared with a current-day average of 88 percent.

Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."

...

But there was no chance Bush's unit would be ordered overseas. Bush says that toward the end of his training in 1970, he tried to volunteer for overseas duty, asking a commander to put his name on the list for a "Palace Alert" program, which dispatched qualified F-102 pilots in the Guard to the Europe and the Far East, occasionally to Vietnam, on three- to six-month assignments.

He was turned down on the spot. "I did [ask] – and I was told, 'You're not going,' " Bush said.

Only pilots with extensive flying time – at the outset, 1,000 hours were required – were sent overseas under the voluntary program. The Air Force, moreover, was retiring the aging F-102s and had ordered all overseas F-102 units closed down as of June 30, 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure do. I also know that they don't show the good things either, and, don't reflect how soldiers really feel which is 'fuck this shit' grumbling in private to 'yes, we will kick ass for America' in front of the platoon Commander. In the end, they are there for each other and are proud of it, even if they do decide not to go back and don't re up. They serve neither party except, possibly the right as they do develop a hatred for the people whom they are there to serve and get desnensitized and develop contempt for same.

Because of time I'll address only this part of your reply for now... I now know that you are as you say... former military! Because ANY former miltary knows that that is exactly what is going on! And I've said the exact same thing to others... once you are in a fire fight and/or a pitched battle you aren't fighting for no frigging ideal... you're fighting to save your azs and to keep from getting one of your buddies killed! And when you aren't fighting... unless you're a kiss azs looking for a promotion... you're bitching! LOL! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but wasn't eligible because he only had 300 of the 500 hours of flight training required.

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press)

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Initially.

He enlisted in TANG (probably because he wanted to follow his Dad, who was also a fighter pilot). Then when in TANG, he eventually volunteered to go to Vietnam.

His commanding officer said this was so.

The NY Times is likely STILL on this tory and if they had found proof he refused to go to Vietnam, it would be front page headlines for a month straight.

Monty, so glad you have joined "us." you know the guys that don't trust Bush's own words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lileks follow up article was a bit more realistic. Thank you.

I followed the article to the interview with Admiral Craig Bone. While the interviewer was somewhat revealing in his desire to find a flaw in the security, he failed. And, I have no idea of what could convince an individual such as this to not be aphrehensive.

One of the articles linked was interesting and explains much.

"This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light."

Sad to say but Bush's publicity people should have been fired three years ago.

Essentially, I don't trust the government of the UAE in it's resolve to stand firm against terrorism, and all of my posts are in line with this central issue.

I do. See, once youpick a side in the war on terror there is no going back.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the UAE was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda in transferring money to the hijackers. The nation immediately cooperated with the U.S., freezing accounts tied to suspected terrorists and strongly clamping down on money laundering. The U.S. stationed troops in the UAE during the 2003 Iraq war.

Given the make up of the Middle East and the threats from outside UAE such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, they need more friends than enemies. To them, Iran is scarier than they are to us.

I'm not sure why Drew has been so emphatic about the point that DP World will be managing the ports but not owning the land they sit on. The practical difference between a manager and an owner/manager is the piece of paper in this case.

Sorry to say that I was wrong. They will own the land it sits on. However, to answer the question, please read the interview with the Admiral above. It will explain a lot.

If it's reasonable for a foreign company to manage our ports, is it not also reasonable for a foreign company to manage (or own) the airlines that connect our cities?

Well, ask the shareholders of Air Canada how they felt when the US offer of $16 per share was shit canned by the government and then a year later the company was worthless, their stock as well.

To be sure, the continuing sorry state of port security is a major blot on the administration's record.

Is it? What attacks have occured through these ports? What information have you that there is a 'gaping hole' through which hidious things have been leaking through. I have not heard anything good, or bad.

Actually, what he means of course is that it is no worse than the dismal failure it is now. Only 5% of containers checked?

You cannot protect a coutry from this sort of threat sorry to say. You can only decrease the possibility of something happening. For example, trucks that cross the border into the US are rarely opened up and checked, about one in ten is sent through an X ray machine. If they all were, nothing would move and guess what you next bitch would be? 'Terrorists don't exist, they are only a way to pump money into the government' So, lots can be getting through but, this is where deterence and having trained people lessen the possibility and up the risk factor for smugglers to get caught to a level where they don't do it.

A container for example, that contains an item that is going to be used as a weapon is a very valuable commodity to terrorists. First, they have to assemble or produce it, or the parts thereof. Then, smuggle it to the shipping point painstakingly in parts and reassemble it into a container without being discovered. Then, get it past the security on the other end. Then, they have to make sure it is diguised and makes the journey safely and is not tampered with. Then, at the other end, they have the most valuable thing they could ever possess, even more than their lives - and sitting in the harbor in NYC.

And then, after all this trouble, they have a greater than one in fifteen chance that they will lose it. With odds like that, the drug trade would fold.

Now, what if they need TWO parts of the object to be assembled? That makes it one in seven or so that it will be taken from them and the entire plot exposed. I'd say 5% is pretty good and provides the detterence that is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush is given too much credit. Apparently, despite the fact the white house acted unilaterally without mentioning this deal to congress, he didn't even know about it until it was in the media. Man, I need a job like that. :lol:

Don't forget Bubber... Clinton got a bl*wjob... so anything that the George does or wants is okay... be it right or wrong. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean there is a 911 about to occur? What information do you have that the State Department should know.

Or, did you mean what you 'thought' was safer because you didn't know about it or that it could not happen to such a degree?

BTW, article here that explains much of what I and others have been trying to say all along.

Shipping industry is baffled by port uproar in America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In simple terms, at most ports security works like this: while the ship is in the water, it's under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. While docked at the port and those goods are being unloaded, it's under the jurisdiction of Customs and Border Protection. But the minute those goods come off of the ships and land on the dock, security is the sole responsibility of the terminal operator.

The security plans are reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the terminal operator is solely responsible for the execution of those plans. The plans are classified secret. If a foreign government gains control of the terminal it becomes privy to the classified security arrangements. Not wise, in the opinion of this terminal operator.

-William Tucker, CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...