Posted on 03/08/2006 7:50:10 AM PST by SmithL
When the story broke that the Bush administration had approved a British-owned company's sale of U.S. port operations to one headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, all hell broke loose.
The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports to yet another foreign company, but also to a foreign government. The fact that the deal was approved without the legally authorized 45-day investigation normally required when acquisition by a foreign government and security concerns are involved, certainly doesn't help. Then there was President Bush's claim that he knew nothing about the deal until after it had been approved, which wasn't terribly reassuring.
On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact 21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.
The firestorm over the ports deal has exposed a rift on the right and a political opportunity for the left.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Feeling reassured now?
This is exactly what those much maligned right wing groups in the late eighties were warning was then about to happen. Adding that these foreign companies would not have the patriotism or ties to this country and could be more easily manipulated to work against our interests.
Sorry....you can't get away with that....what are OPERATIONS of a Port to YOU? Is that the Customs department? The Security Department? The loading and unloading? The Payroll Department? The hiring and firing? What kind of business experience do you have?.....there are MANY interpretations of "operations." Pick/describe the one/s you think are included in this agreement.
But it can lead to him being unelected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592575/posts
In your post # 42, you stated: "I can not see the logic in waiting until we are attacked before implementing common sense defensive measures."
My question (one last time): "Would shutting down every gas station in the U.S. be a "common sense defensive measure"?
I already did.
The words I used are simple and accurate enough. If you wish to pick away at the meaning of either or redefine them in any way, have at it, I'll listen.
- CAN ANYONE think of anything more spectacular that what happened that day????? -
Thanks God it was not later in the day or the amount could have been staggering (20,000... 40,000... more?).
oh yes, the point... If we did not learn from that day... then, we will never "get it." I got it! :)
Got better things than to debate something you won't define with you.....bye bye
Tom Clancy "imagined" more spectacular attacks. So did Yamamoto.
:) I should have said "that it was actually carried out....... in America!" :)
I guess I just do not know what you are trying to say.
I think Hawaii was an American territory, but I know that Pearl Harbor was an American naval base, on December 7, 1941.
I'm seeing where your "common sense" would draw the line (if at all). Did you see my "gas station" hypothetical above?
Good one, you win! :) and Eskimo wins too. But I made my points. Take care.
Sorry, I missed that. I know what you mean.
I was speaking more along the lines of logical defensive tactics during time of war. Establish a guarded perimeter, etc.
Take care too (remember, I had to go back 60+ years for a more spectacular attack - don't discount the impact of a sustained "suicide-bombing" type campaign like what Israel has gone through - soft-bellied Americans would be freaking out).
Look, I understand your concern, but the United States is too big and FREE of a country to effectively guard militarily. I, for one, do not want to change that. It already is easy to attack us – why would terrorists go to all this trouble of stealing the one key, for the one locked front door, if they could shut down much more, much easier, for a bigger impact, through all the other UNLOCKED doors? The people concentrating on "21 port terminals" out of thousands are missing the forest for the trees - how about we win the war on terrorism over there, bring democracy and freedom to the region, so that we don't have to worry about 21, or 2100, port terminals?
In fact, to tell you the truth, I am suprised it has not happened yet!... so credit to the president on that one. Which is exaclty why I support him to authorize to listen to phone conversations, whatever has to be done to prevent an attack. Sure I understand abuses can take place... but if the manage it right, they will be very careful and avoid making stupid things.
You and Johnnie need to get together on your talking points. Johnnie says the terminal operations at issue are so insignificant that the deal won't matter to security. You say the terminal operations at issue are so enormous that no American company can perform them.
Any story in a storm, eh?
Well, you can give up a few trees here and there but if you keep allowing it to happen you soon run out of forest for cover.
...how about we win the war on terrorism over there, bring democracy and freedom to the region, so that we don't have to worry about 21, or 2100, port terminals?
Might work if it doesn't take so long that the unguarded "over here" isn't overrun and there is no "land of liberty" to which our soldiers can return. Foregoing any real defensive posture when battling terrorist forces is insanity.
And I've always had a fondness for this argument. "Go ahead and unlock all the doors because so many are unlocked already." Or, if you prefer, "the boat's already leaky, so punching a few more holes ain't gonna hurt -- much."
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.