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.
Nothing irrational about it.
Bush is hypersensitive about the "feelings" of our clear enemy.
And oblivious to his citizens'.
it's the symbolism thing so crucially at the heart of our enemy.
But Neal, hasn't anyone told you? If you feel this way, you must be a raaaaaacist.
Rice starts Middle East tour to gain support on Hamas, Iran
I wonder if this situation makes this job a little more difficult
Would be true if Muslims thought like Westerners. Unfortunately, they don't.
I first heard about this story on Fox about 2 weeks ago
I'd include the Washington Times; they came out with an editorial saying "a government-owned company from a hostile region should not operate American ports" (Scotch the ports deal). Today I see (in general) a reasoned debate that's I expect will put make a lot of knee-jerks look silly.
Hm. Such a strange confluence of events in the world these days. Let's see:
1) Iran rushing to develop nuclear weapons.
2) Iranian, Euro-centric Oil Bourse launches end of March
3) Israel states that March is the point of no return
4) U.S. dollar will almost certainly take a hit.
5) Oil prices are still pressured to the upside. Any significant disruption of flow (e.g., mining Hormuz) could move oil between $90 and $100 a barrel. (Gas at $3.50 would be a given)
6) Bush does NOT want to intervene militarily in Iran while Iraq is in flux.
7) Israel has been rendered impotent by fifteen years of acquiesence to "diplomacy". Their future is bleak with a nuclear Iran.
8) China and Iran have struck a massive deal for the Chinese GOVERNMENT (state-owned energy firm) to develop a vast oil field in Iran.
9) UAE vies to buy the rights to operate six major ports in the United States. Congress says "no". Bush basically says he'd sell his mother to the gypsies in order to get the UAE government rights to those ports.
So what does this mean?
1) Iran holds a very powerful hand.
2) The U.S. dollar is vulnerable.
3) Israel is in an extremely bad position.
4) Syria will benefit greatly from a nuclear Iran, and becomes part of a quasi Persian Empire.
5) Shiite-ruled Iraq will join Syria as part of this
quasi Persian Empire.
6) The Saudi Peninsula becomes ripe for Iranian takeover. UAE is a CRITICAL strategic point in this regard - bordered in part by the Strait of Hormuz and a "stone's throw" from Iranian land.
After giving further thought to this matter, it's my opinion that we are entering into a pact with UAE which will guarantee a U.S. base of operations in either Dubai or Abu Dhani, with the expressed intent of containing imperial Iran and protecting the shipping lane of Hormuz.
If I'm correct in this assessment, then it is clear that we have decided not to stand in the way of Iran's nuclear ambitions, but will instead seek to contain their regional aspirations. With the Fed no longer reporting M3, the government is sending a clear signal that "no news is good news". This is like a public corporation just deciding to stop reporting it's balance sheet. It's not a good sign.
There has to be a method to the madness. There's more than meets the eye.
It's the Democrats
who should be burning on this.
Republicans said
from the beginning
we're NOT at war with Arabs,
we're fighting terror.
Now we have the 'Rats
painting all Arab countries
as terror psychos.
It shows how stupid
some conservatives have turned
that they're turning on
their own (yet again!)
instead of taking this chance
to skin the damn 'Rats.
What ports in calif...?
Thank you for your opinion. How smug.
Rush has a brilliant analysis.
I don't like the deal either but we're not turning over "port security" to these people. Security and the dock workers do not change.
You're welcome. Not smug at all. Just factual.
Rove has sure called out the Rats on the war. Too funny.
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.