Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
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.
1. 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 its intention to subjugate the entire world under Anglican rule.
2. The UAE IS an Islamic Nation. Review Item No. 2 above.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain.
6. Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates
7. 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.
8. The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Good move.
9. Great Britain recognizes the government of Israel.
10. The UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.
11. Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations.
12. 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.
what the hell does that crap even mean?
What? Are you telling me that, in the minds of some of the nutjobs over there, that vaporizing a US city or two won't bring you a whole lot of virgins in the afterlife?
Don't you think they would have tried something like that OVER THERE first? I mean we only have 2 sizable military presences over there.....
IF they had a weapon, which they don't.
and let's not forget, those countries over there AREN'T exactly friends either.....
the UAE is in a border dispute with Oman AND it's in a dispute with Iran over some islands in the Persian Gulf.
"oh yeah Jimmy Carter is SUCH a good friend of mine...LOL...it's knee-jerkers like yourself that are bringing this forum down with it. FR is a laughingstock now as it was with Terri Schindler was murdered in Tampa. This is my last post to you. Good day."
Right, you didn't have any problems calling me Chucky Schumer's pal, and you call ME the knee-jerker. Let me know if you ever define conservative as something in opposition to the GOP party line, 'botnolongerinIraq.
Try this.http:
//www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583260/posts?page=97#97....
post 97
ohhh he called me botnolongeriniraq...
did it REALLY take you 20 minutes to come up with that??
I mean I know you want to carry Pat Buchanan's water, but you can do better than that.
LOL
Perhaps it might be best if you re-read my post. The part you highlight refers to the behavior of people that have objected to this sale. It makes no reference as to whether this is a good policy move or bad policy move. Only that the behavior of some folks could have been different, in return allowing a differnet less hardened stance by the administration to see this through.
You've been your own worst enemies on this, given the manner carried forth by so many.
You state Arab countriies will forever direct wrath at the U.S. You state this as though it is fact. It is not. Countries like Iran and syria will do this. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that are "allies" though not friends, have suffered from the terrorists THEY created. I am of the opinion these countries are similiar to our alliance with Russia/S.U. during the days of Hitler. The natural order is dispursed because we have a mutual enemy of greater threat. That enemy being one that doesn't respect any Government, including that of the Saudi royal family. This is why we have become allies. Will the natural order return once the terrorists are removed as an obstacle? probable, but until that day a new relationship has emerged.
As to the nuts and bolts issue of whether it's a good idea... even if we supply security, to allow them to make money off the ports? It doesn't sit well with me. But at the same time I am not in the grouping overtly concerned they'll spend millions to blow us up when they toppled two buildings, crashed half the Pentagon, and "retired" several of our planes for significantly less. It defies common sense.
I don't think this is a great deal, I don't think it is either worth the amount of hysteria it has engendered. It is a big deal that's worth national debate. More or less than that i reject.
"I agree with you 199%, but I am yet to here of any American company, or Government entity that could run the ports. DHS or FEMA? Perhaps the Navy, but not on this scale. I'm against the deal, but would like to know the consequences."
According to the Dubai-first crowd, the port operations will be run by the same folks regardless. No big deal about who 'collects the profit,' right? Let's let Wal-Mart run `em! /sarc
Seriously--though the above effectively refutes the 'it-doesn't-matter-who-runs-them-the-same-folks-will-work-there' line--I don't know, either. But I would reckon that at least some American private company would take `em over quick if the sale was sweetened by an additional government check. I don't want a mess in the ports, either.
And here I thought you had posted your last to me a while back, Mr. Baldwin. After you defend our country, you come back and defend Bush where he's caught NOT defending our country's national security. Should I have called you something different, 'botnolongerinIraq? I do so want to be accurate in my posts, a claim you cannot make, ESPECIALLY not after you call me a Buchanan fan.
Since they probably own 50% of the cargo being offloaded, thats not a bad idea!
Muslims will not be running things. Only writing the checks. Nothing is going to change. You should listen to Rush. Besides if the liberal moonbats are against this, then I'm for it.
Jimmy Carter's with Bush. Does that mean you're against it now? If Muslims are 'only writing the checks,' why can we not simply have an American company do that?
Actually, I asked you three questions:
1) How has the objection been irrational, other than the folks on the left who wouldn't profile now are all for it in the case of port operations?
2) Dubai doesn't let foreigners run ITS port. Does that offend you?
3) if the UAE wanted to run Pentagon security contracts, would it be appropriate for us to object to a nearly-done-deal there, or would you worry about being offensive first?
I think people leading the objection from the right started pretty rationally, and then got insulted quickly at the slams from the Bush party line folks. Hard to imagine this thread you link to is the first--and we both know it's not.
As to your question, "when have I [soul seeker] objected to folks raising their voice against any deal at any time? I didn't imply that you had, and I'm not sure what difference that would make.
Actually, I believe we do lease a vital port used for our military over there. If we revoke their contract based only on religion, they might choose to pull that very strategic military port from us ...
And, patriotism is above yours.
BS I don't believe in putting profit over my country's security,but hey they said some companies still continued to business with Nazi Germany during WWII, got to have that almighty dollar don't we
Are we next?
Well, let's see... We have the President of our country threatening to use a veto to make sure it does.
Yep. We are next.
Even Libertarianism is selective. Imagine that.
Is that all you have? You're pathetic.
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.