Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
"And what of the port operations that WE run overseas?"
Oh, so now there are Americans running ports overseas? But, but, but ... there aren't any American companies willing or even able to run ports! /s
Good one Scott.
I have not seen a dedicated "site", but the economics makes sense to me - also, CharlesWayneCT posted #542 above:
". . . nobody is talking about an arab country guarding our port cities.
If we WERE talking about an arab country guarding our port cities, that would truly be silly and we would all be against it.
But since we are NOT talking about that, or anything remotely related to that, saying so does nothing but obfuscate the real issue, which is not security.
Some people own a company, and want to sell the company. The buyer is another company, which is owned by the UAE government. The ports will not be run by the UAE, or even by DP World, or even by O&P, but by the same american subsidiaries that run the ports now, with american workers, trained in running our ports and in our security measures.
DP World gives O&P stockholders 6.7 billion dollars, and hopes to earn it back in the long run from a share of the profits from operating ports around the world that O&P has leases or contracts for. That's all that this is.
If you are nervous, have congress pass a law making it easy for the President to break the leases for "national security" reasons. Right now there is NO EVIDENCE of any security concern with this deal.
Acting in the absense of any rational basis would be rightly seen as simple muslim-hating, arab-bashing. IT would prove the terrorists right, and give comfort to our enemies. It would undermine a country that has been our ally since 9/11, which has endured increasing terrorist attacks because of their support of us.
If we work at it, we could turn UAE into another Iran.
But it is just so easy to yell "Don't turn our port city security over to an arab government."
My son who served a year in Iraq, went to Dubai on vacation (the Army gave him a week off and sent our soldiers there) and he said it was as modern as any American city and was treated well.
I guess you have to check your common sense at the door to be a BGR these days.
It was a bad move then, and it is still a bad move today.
That, and Cheney's accident (which I thought for sure we were going to get another week's worth ; )
If Bush had suggested Haliburton the papers would have run a SPECIAL EDITION, ......lol
No I didn't - you are mixing me up with someone else. I only responded to your post which was nonsensical.
You tried to make a point by saying that we are not at war with the UAE but that is a very flawed argument since we aren't at war with any specific nation.
Not even there is a veto proof majority in the Senate that tells him to effectively go beat off.
Honestly, if you say "Islam is a Religion of Peace & Communism is Dead" often enough, you'll might just believe it too!
"Was it the ears? jk. Ross was okay, but the ideals he espoused was a much stronger draw"
No it was just the ears.....
SOS! SOS!
Oh for Pete's sake....
please explain this to me.....
I am still not convinced one way or the other on this particular issue... BUT
the fact that Bush has been unwilling to VETO all the gross spending.... the BILL OF TERRORISTS (by McCain- spit) ..etc.. but he IS willing to VETO THIS.. well, I just think this HURTS us... how the heck do I swallow this well.....
I know you have the answer... please just fill me in!
LOL!
Seriously. We need to do an inventory. The Bush's generally leave the party in the ditch when they leave office. Dubya has us helplessly grinding our tires in the mud right now.
I was being sarcastic, using a variant of the line used to rationalize unfettered illegal immigration from Mexico.
Rush's legal problems are politically motivated. The only protection he receives are from republicans on varying levels. If he loses the support of republicans then he would have no one so he has to be careful not to alienate them.
I apologize, somehow the response got crossed; you are right someone else said we were.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.