Posted on 03/02/2006 6:26:44 PM PST by AntiGuv
I'm understanding that managing the ports is not the deal. Actually the deal is the managing certain terminals in the ports. Is this correct? If so, those saying that ports are going to be managed by the UAE are intentionally misleading, right?
__________________________________________________________
Hank, as a point of reference, here's the official position the Port of Houston Authority has taken. It explains quite a bit:
http://www.irconnect.com/poha/pages/news_releases.html?d=94774
Now we find Duncan Hunter going down the same road as his ol'buddy Murtha.
So, you know more about Duncan than the rest of us do ~ but he's a committee chairman. We thought we knew the guy as well, but obviously we were wrong. May I suggest that as long as he's a chairman of a House committee he holds a NATIONAL LEVEL job and he's as important to us as he is to you. But if you want him back taking care of just his constituents, and not answering to the rest of us for what appears to be an effort to destabilize our military efforts in the Middle East, ask him to step down from that chairmanship.
It is the primary base of operations for our Persian Gulf and other supporting Naval fleets.
It is our staging ground for our activities in Iraq.
Without it, we will have to withdraw almost completely from the Middle East.
It is my belief that the people stirring the pot on the container ship gantries are doing so for the purpose of driving us out of Dubai. That is, they are engaged in what is actually an act of war against the United States.
They should be taken out and hanged.
What was it you were saying about "security"? This is security ~ and you are not supporting it.
YOU SAID..."I don't think the RINOs are "blindly" following anybody. They are in on the deal, and the deal is with AlQaida."
DISGUSTING.
Disagreeing with somebody is one thing. Calling Duncan Hunter, JD Hayworth, Curt Weldon, and other Republicans who have raised issues with this deal traitors and collaborators with our sworn enemy is beneath contempt.
And none of the 'conservative' 'patriotic' oldtimers around here have any problem with this post???
Well I find it offensive.
This bull$hit is getting out of hand.
It all smells like leftist agitprop to me.
People like Duncan Hunter really do need to explain themselves better. What they are proposing could very well destabilize the situation with Dubai to a degree that we are left without a safe base of operations in the Middle East. That will endanger our troops who are deployed there, and also world access to Persian Gulf oil reserves.
Just where do you guys come from who are always tooting Duncan Hunter's horn? He's far from the smartest, best or most patriotic congressmen we've ever had ~ do some thinking on your own in this situation. Duncan is WRONG unless he's working for the "other side".
You're right, I was against the COSCO deal too, but that is a long past deal that is done. Now, what would be great is if the current deal with Dubai is stopped then the COSCO contract should also immediately be declared null and void. If it will not work for one hostile or terrorist supporting foreign country then it should not work for any other. The rats would be screwed because their own words on the Dubai deal would make it easy to say COSCO goes also.
Thank you for that link as well as the one in the following post!
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.