Posted on 06/20/2006 1:05:25 PM PDT by Valin
Remember Dubai Ports International?
The first-rate Emirates-based firm that, fair and square, tried to buy the operations of several U.S. ports? They were reviled as terrorists, a public outcry followed and then U.S. Congress stuck its nose into the whole business, baselessly condemning the company for no good reason until they were ignominously forced to withdraw from those plans. It was totally unfair to them, they didn’t deserve that kind of treatment, and it sent an incredibly bad message to the rest of the world that the U.S. was flamingly hypocritical. That whole debacle made me ill.
Anyway, this setback hasn’t driven the good company down. Today, Dubai Ports has gotten a new contract to develop Puerto Callao, in Peru, creating a vibrant container terminal where none existed, so that Peru can export its natural gas reserves and anything else would like to export, and get rich doing it. After all, they’ve got a free trade pact with the U.S., they might as well use it!
This port is extremely critical for Peru’s development and will serve as a beachhead from which Peru can challenge the energy export supremacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his little Bolivian minime, Evo Morales. From this new port, tons of new energy will flow to the U.S.’s, Mexico’s and Asia’s markets, adding to world supply, driving down the prices, and in the end doing its part to put these dictators out of business.
Thank you, Dubai Ports International.
You haven't lived until you've seen a few of Paul's 6,000 word data dumps.
I've seen a few of them. Why on Earth can't leftists be concise?
They think that their crap is more impressive in larger piles.
Is "Paul" waiting for companies of the Red Army to come pouring out of the shipping containers in Long Beach?
Haven't you heard? "We're at war".
I've seen how those containers can get handled. Imagine being stuck in a windowless shipping container with 30+ other guys--and then the idiot on the crane drops the container six stories onto a concrete pier. That would just plain SUCK!
The assets were the U.S. terminal operations [ hoot ] 2 seconds.
I use quick clips too. But spheres are not routinely portable, except as in emplacements, such as fixed cargo holds in an LNG tanker.
Now, the JAPEX system of Rail LNG is not the bulk system we employ here, but is intended for relatively small remote markets. They would likely not be transhipped from the Mexican ports to the U.S., shipment via surface transport would be prohibitive versus the economies of scale of pipeline. And those Japex tanks were cylindrical I believe. Not spheres. Looks like apples and oranges.
I think something like that has actually happened...and that may be our newest method for catching the infiltrators. :-)
Cheaper than deporting.
I think it safe to surmise however that no such women would get within fifty feet of your presence without thick steel bars in between her and you. To explore the denial and fantasy complex of delusional psychotics such as the Globalists would definitely make her day. Watching them get their tinfoil in a twist, with more or less constant..."anti-protectionist" "anti-nationalist" "anti-conservative" anti-anti-black-helicopter, etc. diatribes, rants and yammerings.
If anyone is taking themselves way too seriously, it is the apologists for treason. Get a life.
And you have failed to prove anything was an "error" in the list. As for "media matters" never heard of it before you posted its link, as if you had some kind of legitimate "argument." You don't. Still. No substantive point. [snort ]
Well, with your consistent citation of left-wing traitors like MediaMatters and EPI, and your consistent efforts to undermine President Bush, "apologist for treason" most assuredly describes you. Thank you for clarifying that.
Well, you guys are the leftists here, so why don't you explain why you can't be concise...or even substantive?
As for "[M]edia [M]atters" never heard of it before you posted its link, as if you had some kind of legitimate "argument."
Of course you didn't. Which means 1. you are clueless, or 2. you're lying. I don't see how you expect to score points that way . . . speaking of which, questioning the credibility of a source is a legitimate rhetorical device. It is done on FR every day.
That'll leave a mark. I almost feel sorry for poor Paul.
Really. That characterization is totally off base. I will support him when I agree with him, such as withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and give no quarter when I think he is wrong. And he has been sufficiently "off" the last two years post-re-election that there hasn't frankly been much that a conservative has to cheer. Do we need to go through the litany? Harriet Meiers? CNOOC? DPW? Illegal Alien Amnesty? Law of the Sea Treaty? Naval Disarmament? Unilateral nuclear Disarmament (gestures work so well with Putin)?
So your position is now, however, unless you are a complete robot without thought, you think THAT is treason. That is a hoot.
someone 1. using leftist material,But don't you dare question his methods, he (and his material) are above reproach.
2. with which he agrees,
to 3. accuse others of being leftist.
No, it isn't. You have been and remain consistent in your spite for Bush. You consistently cite, to support your hatred for Bush, articles from the moonbat left. Those articles are written by those who despise the United States and everything it stands for, and you quote them with unquestioning approval.
You give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States; just like those traitors, you claim it to be "patriotism."
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.