Posted on 02/22/2006 6:31:33 AM PST by rattrap
I've tried ... tried hard ... but it's no use. I just can't understand why George Bush is so invested in this idea of turning the operations at six essential U.S. ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, over to a foreign government ... and an Islamic foreign government at that.
Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if -- and I think it's a "when" rather than an "if" -- a nuclear device is ever smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Do you think that these containers are screened? Actually, many of them are. But where and how they are screened is critical. Most of the screening actually takes place in a foreign port before the containers are loaded onto a ship for the trip to America. Are any of those containers screened here? Yes. A few. A very few. The primary method of screening is for our security officials to look at the container manifests while those containers are at sea to determine which containers will be opened for further screening. What is being proposed here is to put a foreign government, an Islamic government, in virtual control over just how those manifests are prepared and how they will read ... especially the manifests for containers being shipped from a port operated by an Islamic government TO a port being operated by an Islamic government.
Let this swirl around in your brains for a moment. The wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam is involved in most of the shooting "hot" conflicts around the world. I can't cite the exact numbers right now, but we probably have factions shooting at one another in about 130 or so locations on every continent --- with the possible exception of Antarctica. In about 97% of those conflicts you will find Muslims on one side or another. There is only one major world religion out there that has as one of its basic tenants the goal of world domination. That religion is Islam. There is only one religion out there with a sizable faction that has declared war on our country, and which is dedicated to the goal of killing as many of us as they possibly can. That religion is Islam.
Though far too many people don't realize it, the Western world now finds itself smack in the middle of World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism. (World War III was commonly referred to as the "Cold War." It was a world war nonetheless.) On just what level does it make sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government ... especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans?
So this is where George Bush wants to use his first veto? How many budgets has he signed? Six? We've seen non-defense government spending increase throughout his administration at record rates, and never a veto. Never. Not even a hint of a veto. So now Bush has finally found something he wants to veto? He wants to veto any bill that would prevent the turnover of six critical ports to a Muslim government? Pardon me, but what the hell is going on here?
Bush pretends .. and it has to be pretending .. not to see why people are so worked up over this. On the one hand he suggests that this is all about anti-Arab prejudice. Please, Mr. President. Give us a bit more credit than that. Then Bush says: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."
OK ... where do we start. As you read through this list keep this fact in mind: Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the company selling the American ports operations to Dubai Ports World, is a private company. Peninsular is not owned by the government of Great Britain. Dubai Ports world is a state-owned company, owned by the United Arab Emirates. So, what we have here is a private company selling its rights to operate these six ports in the Untied States to a government ... an Islamic government. (96% Muslim) So, to answer Bush's question as to ...why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." let's start with this correction. It's a Middle Eastern government that's being held to a different standard than a British company. Governments often use deadly force to accomplish their goals. Private companies do not. There, President Bush is your reason No. 1 for a different standard. Now that we've established that rather important difference ... let's move on to compare Great Britain to the UAE.
Great Britain is not an Islamic Nation. The de facto state religion there is Anglican, the Church of England. My extensive research shows that the Anglican Church has never, at least in modern times, committed an act of terror against the United States. Nor has the Church of England demanded that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. Additionally, the Anglican Church has not announced it's intention to subjugate the entire world under Anglican rule.
The UAE IS an Islamic Nation. Review Item No. 2 above.
The 9/11 hijackers did not use Great Britain as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
The 9/11 hijackers DID use the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates
Great Britain did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban, you may remember, provided the operational base for the operations of Al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Good move.
Great Britain recognizes the government of Israel.
The UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.
Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations.
We're not talking about a foreign company here. We're talking about a foreign government. There just must be something here under the surface. Something unseen. Something undisclosed. The Bush White House just can't be this blind to the legitimate concerns of the people and of those in Congress who are concerned about this move.
UAE-government owned oper..
----
So would they operate under UAE Law? What about being able to bring in a bible into the UAE? Isn't importing a bible outlawed there?
That's right. It's more of Bush's super-secret strategery. He has a plan. He can't tell us what it is just now. We have to trust that he has a plan.
Just like Kerry's plans during the election.
Thanks!
My thoughts as well. Any bets on X43's second veto? Oh, say... the 700 miles of border fence? Take the poll
I believe in Bush's case it's called a "One World Orderist"
Which port in California does China run? Provide details please.
Good arguments both for and against this issue. I believe that, with things being weighted the way they are, we should err on the side of caution. Would we have passed ANY amount of domestic port control over to ANY other country during WWII? Absolutely not.
I think Bush has one other possibility to consider... that his stance on this issue (and his position on several others) is helping to hand the democrats control of the house, senate, and presidency of the United States.
That, my friends, is going to take our country in a far more dangerous direction than giving logistical control of a few ports over to a foreign entity.
You didn't answer the question. Can the Holy Bible be imported into the UAE?
Does it matter to the ports question? You implied that because the U.A.E. controlled the ports, somehow U.A.E. law would apply. You're shifting the subject.
Let's shift for a moment..
Are Holy Bibles permitted into UAE ports?
Not to worry. It was funny.
Neal, you obviously didn't get the memo. We're a war against terrorism in general, not Islamic terrorism. You see, Islam is a "religion of peace" that has been "hijacked by a few extremists," and is no more likely to produce terrorists or terrorist sympathizers than Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism.
I agree it's extremely frustrating. I'd like to see more cards on the table, too. The White House hasn't figured out how to deal with an electorate so completely plugged-in and informed as we are. They can't slip anything by just because the MSM isn't paying attention.
That said, I would venture that historically speaking, government strategy has never been a matter for public consumption because it simply couldn't be verified or contradicted by other sources outside of the mainstream press. This is why we didn't make a stink about the ports being in foreign control as they are today - we didn't know about it and it was too hard to investigate. Today, we can Google just about anything and have a general understanding of who, what, where, when, and why these ports are being operated by foreign interests.
So, on the one hand, I understand the government's desire to keep certain things from the public. On the other hand, in this day and age, doing so deserves criticism since it appears the gov't is condescending and telling us "you can't handle the truth". And frankly, Bush needs to wipe out his communications staff and get some adults in there.
The time is coming where the public is going to completely turn off the "War on Terror" rhetoric, whether that's right or wrong. The WH needs to stem this by not engaging in vague, damning transactions that defy reasonable explanation, and then start showing a willingness to seal our borders. Plain and simple.
Let's take that straw dog out for a walk.
Inciting the masses through ignorance.
Done, took the poll. Thanks
Maybe he is just simply out of the loop?
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.