Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Port Story Swerves, Turns Into Tsunami
Rush Limbaugh. com ^ | 2/21/06 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 02/22/2006 7:24:01 AM PST by Valin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What we have here is a tsunami. We've got tsunami of coverage on this port deal that is disabling any reasonable debate about this, and I know it doesn't help this idiot Jimmy Carter has just come out for this port deal. I mean, if Bush really wanted this, Jimmy Carter has just screwed it. Jimmy Carter's just blown this deal sky high by coming out and endorsing it. (Laughing.) This guy is the biggest... We have some Carter sound bites from CNN yesterday. I'm going to tell you what happened to Jimmy Carter. Everybody wants to know what's happened to Jimmy Carter, and it's real simple. It's the Nixon funeral. Folks, I will never forget this. Speaker after speaker -- we got all the living presidents in the audience -- and speaker after speaker is eulogizing Richard Nixon, and they are saying the greatest things about Nixon that were ever said in Nixon's life.

He had Henry Kissinger up there, had Billy Graham up there, even Clinton went up there, and they were all praising Nixon, and they really focused on his foreign policy achievements, and what was Jimmy Carter doing? He was pounding nails at the Habitat for Humanity, and I just know that he had to be sitting there livid, listening, and Rosalyn was probably even more livid than Jimmy was, and I can just imagine all during these eulogies, Rosalynn Carter starts jabbing Jimmy in the ribs and says, "See? See? What are you doing? You're out there pounding nails! What are they going to say about you when you die? You better get yourself in gear here." And ever since then, Jimmy Carter -- I'm not kidding you, folks -- he's been a different guy. He's been out doing nothing but traveling the world, monitoring elections, opposing his own country, winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now he comes out in favor of the United Arab Emirates operating these six ports, and that's going to seal the deal as much as anything else out there will. I know the deal is not going to happen, but I do want to discuss a couple things with you about this, because the tsunami that's taken place here based on the politics of this, quite understandable, but you can't stop a tsunami. Once a tsunami starts, you can't stop it. All you can do is run away from it. That's all you can do, or maybe you can hang around and hope that you survive it, but you can't stop it, and we are in a full-fledged tsunami right now. We have an enemy, and the enemy is Islamofascism. Some might call it "militant Islam," and the United Arab Emirates are said to be one of the breeding grounds.

However, recently the United Arab Emirates have become a partner of "ours," quote, unquote -- just hear me out on this -- in the war on terror. Now, I have read the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Have you read that book, Brian? I didn't think so. You know what? The theory in reading Sun Tzu in defeating this enemy, you can't defeat them totally with military means alone, and one of Sun Tzu's theories is the best way to beat your enemy is to make your enemy your friend. Now, we have spent I don't know how many years and gazillions of dollars trying to export capitalism to China, export capitalism to Russia. The Cold War took 70 years to win, folks. We're expecting overnight success in this thing, and we have pretty much the same scenario and circumstances that we have with the war on terror as we had with the Cold War.

In fact, a Yale historian, John Lewis Gaddis, has a book about this that pretty much... In fact, he's upset a lot of his colleagues because he's credited Reagan in this book for solving the Cold War. It wasn't FDR. It wasn't the Democrats. It was Reagan, and he said Reagan and a couple other people were the only people in the world who believed that SDI would work, but the Russians are one of the other people who thought he would because they were in awe of our technological capability and our rapid advancement and knew they couldn't keep up. Once Reagan started spending on it, it was over, and that's what Lady Thatcher has said. Lady Thatcher's told me that personally and I've heard her say that in speeches and in lectures.

Now, it took 70 years because we practice appeasement. We took 70 years because we practiced mutually assured destruction and so forth. Well, when we confronted them and when we pitted ourselves against them, there was no contest. Freedom will always win when posed against tyranny, and it will be the case in this circumstance, too. But all during the Cold War one of the things that we did was successfully export elements of capitalism. Blue jeans were a huge thing to Muscovites and to Russian citizens. The TV show "Dallas." Once our perverted prime-time soap operas found their way behind the Iron Curtain, there was no way for those people to continue to believe the lie that they were living the best lives in the world. Now, the Islamofascists want to do everything they can to keep our culture out of where they are, A, because they don't like it, and B they'd like to live in the 12th or 13th Century.

The other thing is it is a threat. Like it always is, it will show the oppressed how much better life can be, and this takes time, but you plant those seeds and they grow. Okay, so if you look at The Art of War and Sun Tzu and the best way to beat your enemy is to make him your friend. All right, so we bring the United Arab Emirates here and they invest into our country and into our economic system. The theory behind Sun Tzu is that this will moderate them and so forth. Now, I'm not suggesting this would happen, I'm just suggesting it's not even possible. I did this as an experiment. Snerdley is already shaking his head, "No way, not possible," because the tsunami has swept him. It's simply impossible to debate the issue. There are legitimate really good economic reasons to do this deal, as I said yesterday, but they are going to be overshadowed by the politics.

Now you've got Pataki and Ehrlich, two Republican governors out there saying, "We're going to stop this. I don't care how," so it's moot. I just think that it's an opportunity to debate things in a pure economic sense, and also, let me just ask you, Mr. Snerdley. Do you think that we're actually going to defeat the Islamofascists militarily alone? Do you think that? (interruption) Well, I don't. I don't think it's possible to do that, because when are you going to define victory? There are always going to be some of these renegades popping up trying to get a bomb or shooting somebody or whatever. I mean, I can see considerable progress militarily, and I'm saying you can't do it without military action as we're engaging in, but at some point there's going to be something else required of that.

I'm not saying the UAE port deal is it. Please don't misunderstand me here. You know, it's just this simple. I've heard some people say, "One of the smartest things we could do is get them involved with us economically and make them dependent on us economically more and more, and that will lessen their support for the governments that we're dealing with here, lessen their support for these renegade mosques and imams and terrorists." Now, there's one glaring argument against that: We have gotten them so involved in our economy with their own oil, and it has not stopped them from funding these organizations. However, have you noticed the mild panic that set in when Bush has started talking about our addiction to oil and how he's saying we've got to get rid of this dependence on foreign oil?

He's out in Colorado today at the Renewable Energy Laboratory. He's now big into hybrids. It's so hard to say that: my own president, big into hybrids! I could say, "Mr. President, when you stop flying on Air Force One and start traveling in one then I'll take you seriously," but I will refrain from saying that. But nevertheless, the OPEC crowd, when Bush did this, they raised their hand and said, "Wait a minute. You are not going to succeed at this." See? There's no question they need us, but because we're in this sense of dependence and need on their oil, for their oil, we don't talk as tough with these people as we did, say, with the Soviets and this sort of thing. Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there as something to think about. I'm not trying to persuade you at all. It's just a little think piece. It's irrelevant anyway because the tsunami has overtaken this, and the UAE will not be part of the port deal.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I love provoking thought out there, and I love provoking knee-jerk reactions, too, and I'm sure that many of you are having knee-jerk reactions, and many of you are wondering if I've lost my mind because you have not really listened to what I've said. You are hearing that I am not just ripping this deal like everybody else is; you're wondering if, "Oh, is Rush...?" It's sort of like the backlash I got when NAFTA was going on out there, but it is a free-trade issue economically and that's why economically it makes all the sense in the world, but I'm not going to belabor that. I do want to give you the details here. I mentioned the book on this distinguished historian from Yale, John Lewis Gaddis. He's got a new book on the Cold War, and it's got to exasperate the left because he doesn't credit all the presidents for the collapse of the USSR and he doesn't credit Gorbachev all that much.

He credits Reagan -- as I say, this is a Yale historian -- for confronting and spending beyond the Soviets' ability to keep up, and he also says, as I said to you: every scientist in the world knew that SDI wouldn't work. The only people who believed it were Reagan and the Soviets, and that's his theory. When asked, "Well, didn't the Soviet scientists warn their leaders that, 'Hey, it's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo and talk. It won't work'?" he said, "Yeah, but the scientists in the Soviet Union were ignored because their leaders were so in awe of US technological capabilities." In other words, they thought we could do it. They had seen us do too much.

You put a free society up against a tyrannical dictatorship any day of the week -- I don't care if it's one superpower versus the next -- and eventually the free society is going to run rings around them. And then he was asked, Mr. Gaddis was, if the war on terrorism was at all similar to the Cold War, and he said there's no question about it. The similarities are profound. He said, "I might disagree with the plan and the execution of the war on terror, but the overriding idealism to spread freedom around the world and to rescue people from tyranny was exactly what the Cold War was about," because that's how you protect yourself, is you disarm people who want to imprison others, and that's the same thing that we're doing here.

Now, PS to this, the Cold War took 70 years because about 65 of those years, or 60 of those years were fought under the policies of appeasement and the mistaken notion that we couldn't do anything about the Soviets, that all we had to do was find a way to live peacefully with them, peacefully co-exist. That governed our belief system for 60 years until Ronaldus Magnus assumed office in 1981 and then it was a few short years after that and sayonara, the Soviet Union. So I can't wait 'til Bill Schneider at CNN reads this book or hears an interview, because Schneider, I can imagine a poll question he'll put together: "Would you rather be in a Cold War, or not? Is the Cold War the right direction for the country?" as though it's our choice. He'd have a field day with that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Jacksonville, Florida, this is Rob. You're up, sir, your turn.

CALLER: Dittos, Rush. Hey, I listened to your monolog about trying to equate the USSR and the Al-Qaeda problem as having the same solution. I just have to disagree with that. So one of the things I wanted to --

RUSH: I want to applaud you. I want to applaud you before you get into your point, because what you're doing takes guts.

CALLER: Thank you.

RUSH: You're disagreeing with me takes guts. You've seen many people try this and bomb out, fail miserably, and yet here you are going to try, and I applaud you. Go for it.

CALLER: Thank you. The USSR is a government, and that is basically a system on how the people will conduct themselves.

RUSH: No. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa who. The USSR was a system where the people had no choice in how to conduct themselves.

CALLER: That is correct. Still, that was a formalized government.

RUSH: I understand that.

CALLER: Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization with a belief system based on the --

RUSH: Yes, it's an ideology masking as a religion, true.

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: That's right.

CALLER: Where we have educated several people in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe in general, and these people have lived in our culture. They go back to the Middle East. They reject our culture. They become still involved with Al-Qaeda. The simple point: We had 19 hijackers that came over here, educated themselves on how to fly our planes into our buildings. They were amongst us. We did not know these people. They were kind of like sleeper cells. We knew who the Russians were. When the Russians sent their athletes over here after wearing our blue jeans --

RUSH: Wait. Wait. Hold it a second.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: You're missing my point. We did know who they are. I don't want to go rehashing history. We did know who they were. It's called Able Danger. It's called the CIA. We knew who they were. We knew who these people were the afternoon of 9/11. We had their pictures up on television. We knew who they were, if not then, the next day. We knew who they were, and we knew what they were doing. We didn't connect the dots. But that's old new, that's history. I understand the differences: Soviet Union is a state, and Al-Qaeda isn't and to prove that Al-Qaeda doesn't have a team in the Olympics and that's what the Olympics is missing, by the way. If Al-Qaeda had a team, I would be watching. See, when the USSR and the Soviet Union had a team, it was blood sport.

It was good guys versus evil, white hats versus black hats. Where is Al-Qaeda? The fact that Al-Qaeda doesn't have a team proves that it is not a state. They are an ideology. They are a fascist movement masquerading and hiding under a religious movement, and that gets them all kinds of freedom and judgments that are favorable to them and so forth. I understand all that. Just the point I'm making here is that I'm not talking about the port deal as having an eventual effect on Al-Qaeda individuals, but Al-Qaeda does get support from governments, and the more those governments could be made our friends and become interdependent with us or interlinked economically, the less likely, theoretically, would be their desire to do anything to upset the success of their trading partner, the United States and so forth.

This is a theoretical discussion. I am fully aware of the differences between the Soviet Union and Al-Qaeda, but we are not talking about Al-Qaeda buying the ports, unless that's what you think is going to happen. If you think this is actually Al-Qaeda buying and running the ports, then I agree, there's no way. There's no way, anyway, folks. I told Mr. Snerdley during the break, "I ought to come out for the deal. I ought to come out for it just like I came out for NAFTA, just like I opposed Perot." I'm going to tell you, there's part of me that if you throw all this tsunami out, there's part of this that fascinates me. There's a real part of this that fascinates me, and the idea that we have tried this technique in defanging enemies. I understand the cultural differences.

I understand that a lot of these people are growing and being raised on hatred, and they return to these cultures and so forth. I'm not talking about affecting those people. I'm talking about affecting the governments that sponsor them and pay for them even though they're not tied to a single state, Al-Qaeda is not a state. If it weren't for money from the Saudis, some of these wackos around there that fund them through these phony, bogus charities and so forth, but even if that stops, they're going to steal the money somewhere. They'll find a way. They're thugs. They're criminals. Fascists. I appreciate the call. John in Boston, you're next, sir. It's nice to have you on the program with us.

CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush.

RUSH: Hi.

CALLER: Rush, maybe I'm reading too much into the whole port security issue, but for me this is as dangerous as when Bill Clinton let his friends sell the missile technology to China. I mean, the difference here being that we didn't find out about what Clinton did until it was too late, but now we actually have a chance to stop this, and the reason I think it's so dangerous is that the UAE has links to terrorism, has links to some of the 9/11 terrorists. They were apparently laundering money for Al-Qaeda through there, and I'm sorry --

RUSH: I've heard all that.

CALLER: Okay, I understand that, but to me it doesn't make any sense. It makes as little sense as letting the Saudis run airport security.

RUSH: Wait just a second. A: They're not the Saudis and I'll tell you there's a part of this, like I said yesterday, that really fascinates me about the Democrats. In one sense, yeah, the White House has to know this deal isn't going to fly so they set it up anyway -- and look what's happening! All of a sudden the Democrats are acknowledging we have an enemy. The Democrats. I mean, the Democrats have been flushed on this like I haven't seen. I haven't seen them get flushed on anything. If they're trying to put Bush and Cheney in jail, essentially. If they're trying to impeach them for domestic spying and for torture, for all these horrible things we're doing, in conducting the war on terror. If we, you know, don't have, really, a "war on terror;" we're the ones manufacturing the terrorists -- I mean, that's what the Democrat Party line has been. "We are creating the terrorists by going to Iraq, fighting the war on terror!"

They're the ones that wrote books and had seminars two weeks after 9/11. "Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us?" and the Democrats have concluded they hate us because of Bush. Bush is a terrorist; Bush is a torturer; Rumsfeld stinks; Rice stinks; all these people have got to go; we got rid of Ashcroft; we gotta get read of Gonzales and so forth, and now all of a sudden here comes the UAE port deal, bam! The Democrats are on board with the whole idea that those people are our enemies and represent a security threat.

This is the first time in four years that I can recall a Democrat seriously being concerned about this group of people, and this is racism. This is racism. We are concluding that all Arabs are terrorists. We are concluding that every damn one of them -- be they a sheik, an emir -- they are all terrorists. They all have ties to terrorists and they all seek our utter, total destruction, and we can't risk an exception to that. They're all that way -- and welcome to racism Democrats, because the Democrats are leading the show on this just as well as a lot of conservatives are. So when Democrats are illustrating their racism, their xenophobia, they're also demonstrating that they fully acknowledge we have an enemy. Well, this is a tenuous position for them to take because their kook base doesn't believe any of this.

So there's just a whole lot going on here. Now, as to the ChiComs. I'm sorry, the North Koreans. Either one. Clinton and North Korea and Clinton and the ChiComs. In the case of the ChiComs, here's what the caller was talking about. This little Clinton administration history for you. There's a company called Loral Space out there, and it's headed up by -- I forget its name, but a huge, big-time Clinton donor; the kind of guy that would get a puff piece as a donor in the Washington Post as a bunch of Hillary donors got yesterday. All right? So this guy is involved in space technology, his company Loral is. Now, before the questionable deal came along, the state department dealt with the process of granting waivers to US companies to help companies or foreign governments that were not totally friendly with us. The Clinton people came in and took that away from the state department.

Well, I know why, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. They control that, too. They gave it the commerce. They switched that to the commerce department where good old Ron Brown was installed as the secretary, and bammo! The Chinese, the ChiComs, could not put a missile in orbit. They could launch it but they couldn't figure out how to get it to orbit. It would go up there and come down. Well, guess who fixed it? Loral Space! Loral Space sent some people over there after one of these crashes of a rocket that failed to secure orbit, examine the wreckage, and taught them about gyros and whatever is necessary, and now it is said that the ChiComs can actually put an intercontinental ballistic missile of some significant range that might hit close to the US left coast if they launched at us.

Then we have the North Koreans and there we have our old buddy Jimmy Carter involved with Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton again. We thought we're helping them feed their population by giving them the means to build nuclear power plants -- and, lo and behold, they're a nuclear weapons manufacturer now. Leave the North Koreans out for a moment. The difference between the United Arab Emirates owning or operating six of our container port areas versus the ChiComs getting their technology to get missiles to go where they want them to go from an American company, is that the United Arab Emirates already own almost all of the ports where the containers that are shipped to this country are loaded. They own, I think, Hong Kong. There's a whole bunch of other places that they already operate.

I think (interruption). What's that? China? They're in China, and then they're in Hong Kong, but "ownership" is maybe too strong. They certainly... Well, they "own" it but operating it still happens locally. So it's not as though we're allowing them into an area of commerce where they aren't yet already involved. They're already involved, and the company that currently owns this or sold it, actually, was British. We didn't own the port operation. Britain -- a greater ally than any Arab company -- did. We can make these analogies, and I understand that. It's as bad a deal as helping the ChiComs keep their missiles in the air, and it's as bad a deal as North Korea and so forth. I totally understand. I totally understand all that, and I'm not arguing with you.

I'm just saying there's some other aspects to this that are not even being discussed because the tsunami has swept this whole thing along to the point that there's only one aspect to it that anybody wants to talk about -- except me -- because I'm just fascinated by the other elements of this and where it could lead. I'm fascinated by the politics of it, too. As I say, the Democrats having to come out and admit that we have an enemy here. They may not recover from this. Their whole foreign policy is based on the fact that none of what we're doing here is necessary it. If the Democrats were consistent, this is a great example of how they are not telling us who they really are.

If they were being consistent with everything they have said about the war in Iraq and the war on terror, Abu Ghraib, Club Gitmo, all the "torture," the "secret prisons." The Democrats ought to be cheerleading this deal! We don't have an enemy. We don't have this big war. We have created all these terrorists. We need to welcome them into our society and culture and show them we mean no harm. If they were consistent, they would be leading this charge for this deal to be done. The fact that they're not means that the last four years, everything they've said about the war on terror and "Bush is Hitler" and so forth has been a lie. We've always known it, now we have evidence -- an abject lie and nothing more than a strategical political position in order to secure funding from these wacko lunatics in kooksville that run these Democrat websites.

Got it?

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: arab; arabs; dubaidubya; enemywithin; fifthcolumn; jihad; ports; rush; sellout; strategery; talkradio; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2006 7:24:06 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Valin
Category Five Political Tsunami Code Yellow

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

2 posted on 02/22/2006 7:26:14 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Rush we were involved economicly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE before 09/11. Need I tell you where 100% of the 19 terrorists originated from, we sponsored from?

Folks out here who disagree with this deal are not brain dead. They do understand the dynamics of this and they aren't buying in. We're not one dimensional loons who for the sake of arguing pointlessly, determined to take the negative side.

We do NOT want the UAE states involved in our ports on ANY level. Is that clear? If the UAE wants to continue our business relationships and actually enhance invenstment in other conerns in the U.S., as long as they are not of strategic importance, by all means encourage them to do so.

For the sake of your own credibility, get off this kick where you keep infering that we have to be ignorant not to want this deal. We have to be a fool and not fully understand if you object. This reveals you to be much more myopic than you think we are, if you truly thank that to be the case.


3 posted on 02/22/2006 7:31:13 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I listened to Savage yesterday for an alternative opinion, which he usually has no matter the issue.

Today we learn that Tom Daschle and Madeline Albright are up to their necks in this deal, working on behalf of the UAE.

4 posted on 02/22/2006 7:33:18 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Is seems Rush truely is a BushBot?


5 posted on 02/22/2006 7:34:58 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Poor, poor, Rush. Once again, a lot of hot air and very little substance.


6 posted on 02/22/2006 7:37:35 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Questions
1 How long has this UAE run company been in businsee?
2 What other ports do the run?
3 Has there been any security problems in these ports?
(If the answer to question 3 is none, then the deal should go through, if there have been problems then the deal should be killed)


7 posted on 02/22/2006 7:39:00 AM PST by Valin (Purple Fingers Rule!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Valin

How many of our ports has the UAE run up until now? ZERO

I don't give a fig if it runs 100% of the ports around the world outside the U.S. I want no part of that deal in our ports.

Do I need to spell it out any clearer for you?

Probably so...


8 posted on 02/22/2006 7:41:14 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think he's condescending. I think overall he agrees with the deal. I think he's wrong.


9 posted on 02/22/2006 7:42:09 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Valin

I haven't studied the issue enough to have an opinion either way, but I agree with Rush that this has been a knee-jeck reaction thing without any studied and reasonable debate ...


10 posted on 02/22/2006 7:42:51 AM PST by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Daschle, Albright and Carter...

Whew, how I long to cozy up to their side... NOT!


11 posted on 02/22/2006 7:44:14 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I want no part of that deal in our ports.

Why?


12 posted on 02/22/2006 7:48:04 AM PST by Valin (Purple Fingers Rule!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Once again, the MSM Noisy Anti-Bush Bias Goes To....


13 posted on 02/22/2006 7:49:20 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
But the United Arab Emirates are not Saudi Arabia. Why would we treat them the same as Saudi Arabia when they have not behaved the same as Saudi Arabia? We don't treat Kuwait the same as Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. has been a more reliable ally against Saddam and Iran than Saudi Arabia.

Besides, as I pointed out, the ownership of the terminals is not transferred; it's the company that coordinates overall operations between terminals. The Coast Guard has the authority--which I have seen exercised--to deny landing to any ship they deem a safety to national security or safety. The seven ports referred to have BIG Coast Guard stations.
14 posted on 02/22/2006 7:51:38 AM PST by GAB-1955 (being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom of Heaven....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Valin, I stated why many times on the long thread from yesterday. I don't have the time or inclination to repeat myself here. Don't take it personally. Thanks.


15 posted on 02/22/2006 7:51:56 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Rush is 100% wrong on this. Too much time on the golf course and in the private jet, I guess. We cannot trust the America-hating Arabs. Any level of involvement in our ports is unacceptable. Its just asking them to smuggle in nuclear or bioweapons that will be used against us. Rush doesn't have to toe the administration line all the time.


16 posted on 02/22/2006 7:52:20 AM PST by Astronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

"I want no part of that deal in our ports." I agree. the UAE government may be friendly, but how many of the people actually at the ports will be islam-o-nazis? And the people dealing with it in the UAE?


17 posted on 02/22/2006 7:53:03 AM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GAB-1955

Then why did Australia issue a travel advisory stating that the UAE states were a high security risk and a terrorist threat danger to travelers?

Look folks, I do not want the UAE involved in our ports. There are plenty of other concerns for them to invest in. We have a robust business exchange with them now. They can expand it in non-strategic ways. I'm all for it.


18 posted on 02/22/2006 7:54:50 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Questions
1 How long has this UAE run company been in businsee?
http://www.dpworld.com/subpages.asp?PSID=1&PageID=21

Dubai Ports (which comprises Dubai Ports Authority (DPA) and DP World) has been at the forefront of Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the world's leading trade and commerce hubs. DPA is focussed on the home ports at Rashid and Jebel Ali which DPI formed in 1999 (as Dubai Ports International) to export this success internationally. DPI initially applied its expertise to managing ports in the Middle East, India and Europe. Its first project was at Jeddah Islamic Port (in 1999), where it collaborated with its local partner on the management and operation of the South Container Terminal (SCT). In 2003, SCT was the first terminal in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to exceed 1 million TEU and volumes in 2004 exceeded 1.3 million TEU. DPI then went on to develop successful operations at the ports of Djibouti (2000), Vizag, India (2002) and Constanta, Romania (2003).

In January 2005 DPI transformed its network with the strategic acquisition of CSX World Terminals (CSX WT), the international terminal business of CSX Corporation, renaming itself DP World to reflect the change. This acquisition gave DPI a strong presence in Asia with major operations in Hong Kong and China as well as operations in Australia, Germany, Dominican Republic and Venezuela. Importantly for the future development and expansion of its network, DPI also acquired CSX WT’s strong project pipeline.



2 What other ports do the run?

http://www.dpworld.com/maincats.asp?CatID=1

Germany - Germersheim
Romania - Constanta
Venezuela - Puerto Cabello
Dominican Republic - Puerto Caucedo
Australia - Adelaide
Hong Kong - CT3
Hong Kong - ACT
China - Tianjin
China - Yantai
Hong Kong - ATL
China - ATL Yantian
India - Cochin
India - Visakhapatnam
Saudi Arabia - Jeddah
Djibouti - Djibouti
China - Shanghai Ji Fa
China - Yantian


19 posted on 02/22/2006 7:55:00 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Astronaut

Well, from my perspective you're right. Of course I'm a little prejudiced. LOL


20 posted on 02/22/2006 7:56:47 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson