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.
youve never seen that one before? :)
An amendment which would by its very enactment render the Constitution meaningless?
It'd be akin to doing brain surgery with a .45
My point is that Sinky is attempting to make a preposterous analogy, which there is no evidence to support.
We are at war with entrenched, revanchist Islam.
We are not are war with ETA, or the ETTE, or the IRA, or the UDA, KDP, or any of a number of equally loathsome terrorist organizations that we would all prefer not exist.
The people who are plotting to kill us are almost without except Muslims.
They worship Mohammad, they read from the Koran, and they attend Masjids.
Even if I were to concede that the IRA was animated by religious motivations, Sink's comparison would still be inapt, because there are not hundreds of comparable groups peppered throughout the globe.
There are countries that are new to the war on terror, and certainly UAE would be considered one of these. I would call them a better ally than Pakistan.
I don't trust them much, but I trust them enough that having a monetary interest in a company that owns U.S. companies that hold leases to ports owned by state governments seems a not-too-risky move in bringing the UAE more into the free-and-interlocked world market which is our best hope to break down the divisions which otherwise will surely lead to the 3rd world war.
You may be resigned to the idea that we must fight and destroy all muslims. I am still hopeful that greed will trump radical islam just as it does so many other beliefs -- that the desire to destroy us will be overcome by the desire to sell us goods and services.
If I'm wrong, we will be in the world war, and I believe we will win it at great cost. But in the grand scheme of things, a fight over the ownership of the foreign company P&O is the wrong fight to pick with a fledgling ally in the war on terror in the middle east, regardless of how you feel about them, and in spite of thier horrid past.
As much as we might like to jump in a time machine so we could have american ownership of our ports, this sale is NOT about that. Blocking the sale will not increase U.S. ownership, and the sale will not change in the slightest any aspect of port operation or security.
I understand that some people simply oppose the idea of having any dealings with Arabs or muslims. But I find that profoundly short-sited and provocative, and a sure path to the war that I would rather avoid if possible.
.
Not true. Not true at all. DPW will have nothing to do with security.
apparently "A British court is expected to give its final approval at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 27." We'll see...
Not sure if this info was posted yet, I didn't read all 2,220 something posts...this is a happening thread...
And you win the prize for pointing out what should be so painfully obvious...why in the world would we make it any easier to be attacked?
All it takes is some disgruntled schlep to flip a switch, pass a document, turn off a video camera...just because the last pizza he ate gave him heartburn or his old lady didn't put out...OR...the last sermon he got from the Imahn at the converted wherehouse mosque lit a fire under his a$$
This is like letting the Fox's brother or second cousin guard the hen house...
Its not worth the aggravation or uncertainty..
It would only render parts of it meaningless just as other ammendments have done in the past.
Regardless, Congress pretty much has the power to do whatever it wants as long as it has a veto-proof majority. One poster said the congress is powerless in this situation which certainly isn't accurate.
Yep. There was only one, and American Catholics couldn't muster a single protest against it. (I'm Catholic too, by the way)
Maybe you can explain the following since you seem to have a vast knowledge on the subject of port security?
"Port Security Remains a Concern in War on Terrorism
Gary Thomas
VOA, Washington
06 Mar 2004, 23:59 UTC
News that Pakistan's top nuclear scientist was engaging in nuclear arms sales sent shock waves around the world. What was alarming to security experts was how easily the sensitive materials slipped undetected through major ports. The sheer volume of goods shipped through seaports makes ferreting out contraband material a nightmare.
When Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan wanted to ship nuclear-related materials to spots like Libya or Iran, his customers had little to fear. The contraband goods, hidden amidst the huge number of massive shipping containers that move every day through the port of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, easily escaped detection.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Brookes, now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Khan's actions have underscored the vulnerability of high-volume seaports to high-tech smugglers. "What we really have learned from this - not focusing just on Dubai," he said," [is] there are a lot of places in the world where these sorts of materials, this sort of contraband, can pass through."
And if a simple smuggler can so easily move his wares through a port, it is even more frightening to contemplate what a determined terrorist might be able to accomplish.
Each day in ports around the world, thousands of huge metal cargo containers are loaded on and off of ships. That, say analysts, makes the odds heavily in the smuggler's favor. It is simply impossible for customs agents to thoroughly search every container.
A thorough scrutiny of one container may take up to eight hours. In many places, laws may be lax and customs officials corrupt. As Mr. Brookes pointed out, in a high-density port, containers can easily be moved in and out of a port with false documentation about the contents and destination.
"Sometimes one or two percent of things are inspected," said Mr. Brookes, "and the people, the smugglers who move these sorts of things, don't write on the box 'centrifuge parts for nuclear weapons' or 'for nuclear power plants.' They disguise these sort of things. There is a lot of documentation that is false. Things are often mislabeled. They are not actually what they say they are."
Experts say the status of Dubai as an open port and a freewheeling trade zone, and its location straddling the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, make it especially attractive to smugglers, particularly those operating out of South Asia and the Middle East. According to news accounts, everything from Western cigarettes to pirated computers flows through Dubai. It has figured in several nuclear arms diversion cases in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as figuring prominently in the Khan case. Last month President Bush singled out SMB Computers, a Dubai-based company, as a front for the Khan network.
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington, called Dubai a haven of illicit activity, and sharply criticized authorities there for what he says is a lack of cooperation in cracking down on the nuclear proliferators operating through Dubai. But it is not, he said, the only such hub.
"Dubai is by far the biggest offender, although there are other countries that have come to attention as re-transfer points," said Mr. Milhollin. "One of them is Hong Kong. If everything in Hong Kong that was supposed to go to Hong Kong were in Hong Kong, the place would sink. There's not enough room for everything."
Analysts cite Rotterdam, Hamburg, Singapore, and New York as other worrisome ports of entry.
In a visit to the port of Charleston in South Carolina last month, President Bush said he is requesting nearly $2 billion in the next fiscal year's budget proposal for seaport security in the United States.
Hysteria should direct a government decision that could punish an ally for no good reason?
However, I am not going to agree with the statement all folks against this hate Arabs.
I didn't say that. What I said was that those people who ARE bigoted won't affect the decision, nor should they.
If anyone, even Hillary or UpChucky can show exactly HOW this transaction hurts security at the Port of NY & NJ then the deal should be killed. Knee-jerk hysteria isn't enough.
And as far as Hillary is concerned, that witch once sucked face with Arafat's wife. Arafat, himself, was in the White House more than most American Allies when Bubba was President. Now she's worried about the Arab Menace? What a JOKE!!
I never thought I would see the day when I agree with these dirty rotten RAT B@ST@RDS on anything.... until now when even the DimWits & RINO's by and large are making political points opposing by Bush on this. And Bush, true to form, stupidly and stubbornly digs in his heels in on this issue that is opposed by 9 of 10 Americans. What a friggin idiot he is. Incredible!
That COSCO deal got shot down in the 105th Congress. That port happend to be a mothballed Naval Station in Long Beach. Nevertheless, COSCO still does business here, and has offices at every port in this country.
I hadn't. I've saved it to my computer though in case there is a need for emergency deployment. I was laughing out loud when I read that thing.
I agree. Nothing but the facts. No political BS, no political correctness BS.
Sorry...that was a bit petty and flipant...LOL...
By the way...did you see the the price of natural gas futures today?...nice bounce...
How is this punishing an ally? It's not like this is a make or break deal for them. I doubt that they really even care all that much and it certainly shouldn't endanger an alliance.
Harriet Myers squared bump. The Bush family loses big time on this one.
No, and I missed seeing the close of gold also.
Dubyai is the worst offender. Go figya!
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.