|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2006 : 12:50:37 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
I very much found them to support my argument that to call the vetting process “Completely and utterly flawed” is quite an exaggeration.
The process did not look for any possible connection to Al Qaeda.
If that doesn't rise to the level of "completely flawed", then I'm not sure what would.
quote:
I would absolutely LOVE IT if we had evidence of corruption in the case of this Dubai deal. But we just don't.
The failure to examine this company for links to Al Qaeda doesn't rise to the level of corruption for you? At the very least is is a symptom of other corruption, cronyism. How could a competent and thorough examination of this deal fail to include an assessment of terrorism links?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 13:03:16 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
False appeal to authority. What does a political analyst know about port security or Arabic culture or Islamic extremism?
What!? That's funny, because when I read Foreign Affairs, the authors (who are political scientists) tend to spend an awful lot of their time talking about exactly these types of issues. Just because they are not specialists in security, doesn't mean they are not qualified to talk about this political issue. If a political analyst is not the type of authority to reference in these matters, then what type of authority is a political analyst?
Also, what authority should we turn to on these issues? I supposed you'd say the people who specialize in solely security, such as the people who work for Homeland Security. Oh, wait – those are some of the people who originally approved the deal in the first place! And the Coast Guard, I guess they'd be security authorities. And what did they say? Oh yeah, when their concerns were reported on in the article that you posted here, there was that pesky little paragraph saying, quote:
Later, the Coast Guard said in a statement that the excerpts of its preliminary evaluation "when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis" that eventually concluded "that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in ports" in the continental United States. (my emphasis)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 13:05:18 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: quote:
Hardly an accurate nor a fair translation.
Wow, Val! Thanks for that excellent scriptural analysis! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 13:06:53 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
What!? That's funny, because when I read Foreign Affairs, the authors (who are political scientists) tend to spend an awful lot of their time talking about exactly these types of issues. Just because they are not specialists in security, doesn't mean they are not qualified to talk about this political issue. If a political analyst is not the type of authority to reference in these matters, then what type of authority is a political analyst?
Yeah, don't answer the question, just bluster about something irrelevent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 13:19:14 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: quote:
A deal of this magnatude and involving a state run government is no routine matter.
I totally agree and have agreed that the vetting process is questionable, and it is for exactly that reason that I agree. However, because the process was done in the routine manner, I find it to be an exaggeration to say, “completely and utterly flawed" We can disagree on this point.
quote:
That it was tried to be bullied through once concerns were raised makes it suspect.
Maybe I've just really missed it, but where is the evidence that it was “bullied through”?
quote:
"Usual" would be an independant company running the ports. A foreign nation running the ports is unusual.
Again, I agree that the 45 day review is necessary, and I agree with that because we're dealing with a foreign nation, not just an independent company. However, there's still no evidence of corruption, and even though it is “unusual” it is not the first time a foreign nation will be managing a port terminal.
I would just like to emphasize that we are not talking about managing the entire port. We are talking about one terminal at each port. The US still owns the ports.
quote:
I said the vetting process was flawed. Not corrupt.
Ah, I misinterpreted you then. Considering that we both agree that it was flawed, perhaps we are dragging this out by nitpicking over to what degree the vetting process was flawed. :-)
quote:
Because the rat-bastard has a long laundry list of misrepresentations and outright lies.
That's true. I don't trust the bastard either. But I repeat my question, what does it matter what Bush's motivations are if Dubai passes the 45 day review?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 13:20:19 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 13:30:12 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
What does a political analyst know about port security or Arabic culture or Islamic extremism?
That's like asking What does a biologist know about fungi? Considering that some biologists specialize in studying fungi, one could know quite a bit. And most, though probably not all biologists, would know at least a little more about fungi than the average layman. If a political analyst is writing an article or editorial about an issue that involves port security, Arabic culture and Islamic extremism, it is that person's job to research facts and interpret the data, and they have the training and experience to be better at research and interpretation than a layman.
There's your answer.
Also, regardless of your pathetic accusation that I'm using a false appealing to authority, if we remove every single name drop I did, the facts and interpretation completely stand on their own. I have committed no fallacy.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 14:13:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: quote:
A deal of this magnatude and involving a state run government is no routine matter.
I totally agree and have agreed that the vetting process is questionable, and it is for exactly that reason that I agree. However, because the process was done in the routine manner, I find it to be an exaggeration to say, “completely and utterly flawed" We can disagree on this point.
quote:
That it was tried to be bullied through once concerns were raised makes it suspect.
Maybe I've just really missed it, but where is the evidence that it was “bullied through”?
Operative word here was "tried", marf. He declared that if Congress tried any delaying tactics to enforce a deeper review, he would veto it.
quote:
quote:
"Usual" would be an independant company running the ports. A foreign nation running the ports is unusual.
Again, I agree that the 45 day review is necessary, and I agree with that because we're dealing with a foreign nation, not just an independent company. However, there's still no evidence of corruption, and even though it is “unusual” it is not the first time a foreign nation will be managing a port terminal.
I would just like to emphasize that we are not talking about managing the entire port. We are talking about one terminal at each port. The US still owns the ports.
quote:
I said the vetting process was flawed. Not corrupt.
Ah, I misinterpreted you then. Considering that we both agree that it was flawed, perhaps we are dragging this out by nitpicking over to what degree the vetting process was flawed. :-)
quote:
Because the rat-bastard has a long laundry list of misrepresentations and outright lies.
That's true. I don't trust the bastard either. But I repeat my question, what does it matter what Bush's motivations are if Dubai passes the 45 day review?
If they do, it is still indicative of an arrogant and untrustworthy administration. His motivations indicate he is more than willing to barge ahead with anything he puts his mind to irrespective of propriety or legality. Security be damned, my way or the highway type of thinking. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 15:05:32 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: quote:
Operative word here was "tried", marf. He declared that if Congress tried any delaying tactics to enforce a deeper review, he would veto it.
OK, I get it.
quote:
If they do, it is still indicative of an arrogant and untrustworthy administration. His motivations indicate he is more than willing to barge ahead with anything he puts his mind to irrespective of propriety or legality. Security be damned, my way or the highway type of thinking.
But the Bush administration has agreed to the 45 day investigation of security risks. The only legislation that Bush now threatens to veto is legislation that would block the deal regardless of what the review shows. So the administration did compromise and was swayed.
My original point in this thread was that certain Democrats were taking advantage of public prejudice against Muslims/Arabs by over-reacting to this deal instead of dealing with the concerns calmly and rationally.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 15:15:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 15:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
The failure to examine this company for links to Al Qaeda doesn't rise to the level of corruption for you? At the very least is is a symptom of other corruption, cronyism. How could a competent and thorough examination of this deal fail to include an assessment of terrorism links?
Does your position in an argument become more credible if you repeat things you've already said and say them in a more forceful way? I'm not going over things I've already responded to. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 17:52:53 [Permalink]
|
marfknox
quote:
Does your position in an argument become more credible if you repeat things you've already said and say them in a more forceful way? I'm not going over things I've already responded to.
I said that before? pfffft. I don't think so.
Val may have mentioned it, and I was merely expressing my incredulity that any thinking person would not conceed that any approval of this deal that didn't include an assessment of terrorism links was deeply flawed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 20:58:06 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
I said that before? pfffft. I don't think so.
Fine, I should have said: Does the argument become more credible if you repeat things that have been already said and say them in a more forceful way? Doesn't change the fact that I already responded to it.
quote:
I was merely expressing my incredulity that any thinking person would not conceed that any approval of this deal that didn't include an assessment of terrorism links was deeply flawed.
It is not enough that I admit "flawed" (which I did immediately after it was first mentioned by Val). You are shocked because I won't conceed deeply flawed? Isn't that rather picky? Like I said, I've read both sides of the argument on this issue and come to my own opinion on it. And since I'm in good company, I don't feel insecure or embarassed about it, and I don't really give a crap about your incredulity.
I don't think you or Val or Half are racists or xenophobes just because I've accused some Dems of taking advantage of the public's growing anti-Arab feelings. You guys would rather risk erring on the side of caution. I would rather risk erring on the side of trust. My position sounds insane to you, apparently. Fine. But at least read the things I wrote in response to Florduh about trade as a means toward encouraging modernism among Arab societies, and try to understand the logic behind why I think this port deal could be a positive step toward better relations with the Middle East and thus, reducing Islamic terrorism.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 20:59:43 |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 02:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Ghost Skeptic wrote: quote:
It seems to me that this whole ports issue is the inevetable result of contracting out something that should probably never have been contracted out in the first place. This always happens when you have Free Enterprise Idealogues rather than pragmatists running things.
I've grouped my response to you in with Florduh because of the last part of my response to him about trade being key to reducing terrorism and encouraging modernist values. I am hardly a Free Enterprise Ideologue. I'm a big fan of having a basically capitalistic economy with many socialistic programs that compensate for the flaws inherent in pure capitalism. I am also a big believer that globalism, if implemented correctly, is one of our greatest means toward world peace. It's not a dogma. It's an opinion. Just because you disagree with something, hardly means that what you oppose is a rigid ideology.
You have apparently mistaken me for an Anti-Globalization Wowser when I merely suggeted that contracting out port management was asking for trouble. I happen ot believe that encouraging modernization via trade is one of the best way to cut the fundamentalists off at the knees.
BTW Mentioning free trade to a Canadian, especially an Albertan is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. (American free trade hypocrisy rant withheld)
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 13:39:18 [Permalink]
|
To Ghost Skeptic, let me try to respond again, in a less attack-dog manner, to your original statement of: quote:
It seems to me that this whole ports issue is the inevetable result of contracting out something that should probably never have been contracted out in the first place. This always happens when you have Free Enterprise Idealogues rather than pragmatists running things.
I have no problem with the port terminal management being contracted out. I don't think such a deal is the result of any strict capitalist ideology. I think it is pragmatic, and as someone who is not myself a purist capitalist, I support it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 15:59:14 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
But at least read the things I wrote in response to Florduh about trade as a means toward encouraging modernism among Arab societies
That isn't what this discussion is about This discussion is about allowing a foreign government access to the details of our port security.
I'm an ardent supporter of open trade. I disagree with the method and rapidity with which the Bush admin has implemented so many "free-trade" agreements, mainly that we(the US), as the largest single economic force, should control the pace at which globalization of the economy occurs (in cooperation with our western allies in the EU) in order to protect our own people from the obvious consequences and at the same time ease the transition of the rest of the world into a global economy and try to prevent sudden upsets and cultural shifts that spawn resentment.
If we could do that, and enact foreign policy that is more in-line with what we expect for domestic policy (as in- don't use a fucking hellfire missile on a small town to "arrest" a criminal)... we'd eliminate more terrorists than any invasion of any country could.
But, again, that is a bit off topic.
I have yet to see an even remotely compelling argument for giving port security details to a foreign government, especially one like the UAE.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 19:06:11 [Permalink]
|
| Dude, I see it as both an exaggeration and rash simplification to say we're giving "port security details" to the UAE. As I've said before, the jobs of security is still run by U.S. officials, we're talking about single terminals, not whole ports, and most of the actual workers privy to any remaining "security details" would be Americans while half of the Dubai employees aren't even Arabs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
