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.
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.