Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
pay attention...... the issue is not security. Port security is not at stake and the company in question will not have any security operations other than the fiduciary responsible for transferring sealed containers from the steamship lines to te truckers or visaversa.
The security problem you sweat is trivial when compared with the containers originating in countries where there is no control at all, say Nigeria or Ivorie Coast where they send us containers of coca.
The company in question is a GOVERNMENT!
The GOVERNMENT in question has of yet to answer why money from their banks was funneled to the 911 terrorists.
The GOVERNMENT in question won't even recognize Israel or non-muslim religions.
Who is the bigot here.
bookmarked
That's the point...if the deal was so lousy that there were no US takers, why did the Arabs snap it up? They must want it for some other reason, and we can make some pretty good guesses what that might be.
"Even Libertarianism is selective. Imagine that."
That's right, it stops at the water's edge. Why wouldn't patriotism come before politics? I have never claimed to put anything other than America first. Boortz is much the same. I might disagree with people here how to best defend her, but I have never doubted that she deserves a strong defense, and I am not a big "L" libertarian, contrary to the inferences many draw from my freepername.
No it doesn't. The LP has a foreign policy statement. Shall I dig it out? It starts with open borders...
"No it doesn't. The LP has a foreign policy statement. Shall I dig it out? It starts with open borders..."
Yes it does, but if you'd read my entire post instead of rushing to pigeonhole me, you might have noticed that I clearly stated that "...I am not a big "L" libertarian, contrary to the inferences many draw from my freepername." If we're going to go judging on freepernames alone without reading posts, I bet you have muttonchop sideburns, wear overalls, smell like a horse, and don't belong on a computer. The LP's statement of principles is neither mine nor Boortz's, and both my prior post and my freeper homepage bear this out, and if you want to check out Boortz's differences just google "Boortz speak Libertarian Party."
Maybe, but when you call yourself a libertarian, there's some baggage there. If you deviate from that, fine, but it's not a libertarian stance.
Open borders is very consistent with libertarianism and is the default stance for even the "small" l-ers.
We've got all the Arabists coming out of the woodwork on this issue. I always knew it to be a problem, look at how the Norquist scandal got papered over way back when. But even I am surprised by their multitude and ideological tunnel vision. If the GOP's only hope is to coddle the Arabists (and more relevantly, their bag men?) then we probably deserve to take a fall. Maybe we'd learn a lesson.
And when you call yourself AmishDude there's some baggage there. What of it? If I call myself Chappaquiddick Ted my opinions are still mine, not his. I'm weary of the discussion, and have no interest in changing my screenname to accommodate people who cannot understand what I've said plainly (I don't see anyone but you in doubt as to where I stand) and even posted to my freeper homepage. Why should I deal with months of 'noob' or 'troll' accusations every time I deviate from the GOP party line, because some people can't get past a screen name?
There are no benefits associated with having an Islamic company/country so intimately involved with the day-to-day operations of our major shipping ports.
~ Blue Jays ~
Sad but true BUMP. I only hope the GOP wakes up that this division is on a wedge issue, that it grates every time the middle sees either side dancing about it, and that the GOP-run government starts legitimately policing the border and ports instead of putting up the 5% effort it does now. It'd sure help if they'd start with checking employers and colleges known as illegal havens.
Not true! There will be much nicer rugs on the floor, at least 5 times a day, anyway.
"Since they probably own 50% of the cargo being offloaded, thats not a bad idea!"
LOL--just caught that. Mebbe I'll send that to the WH.
Which port are we talking about? I have heard it the other way--that the U.S. Navy regular stops there, and the Dubai Port World services our military there.
No matter. American national security should still not rest on an autocratic Arab foundation, whether in the Mideast or in Miami.
There would have been hell to pay if the port contract was awarded to Halliburton.
However no foreign company or country should even be allowed to rent an office in one of our ports. This includes England. These ports are high security zones.
Yet sadly there would still be Americans wringing their hands over "what we did" to make those poor Muslims so upset if they ever utilized WMD.
I agree with you that terrorists will go for the whole civilian enchilada if they can get their mittens on nuclear weapons. They're not particularly interested in hardened military targets if they have an option to go after regular people on their way to work.
~ Blue Jays ~
Anyone know why?
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.