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.
Oh, right, your question was such a fair-minded one, no slam at all:
The government should FORCE a company into a deal? Since when is THAT a conservative ideal?
You imply I'm trying to force a company into the deal, and not conservative. So you can blow that "I-just-asked-a-question" b.s. out your piehole. I responded appropriately to your insulting post--now you can either respond to the questions I posed back or stay on the porch.
nope no slam at all.
YOu will see what you want to see. You've done the same with the ports deal, you will continue to do so as you see fit.
I don't see any reason to play to your insanity. Good day.
PS,
Do us a favor and go back into exile.
Please tell me you do not honestly believe people have behaved sensibly in their objections?
Read this lengthy thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1582942/posts
On on end we have folks claiming the President has sold us out to the terrorists, that he is a drunken shrub. On the other we have folks claiming everyone in objection to this sale hates Arabs. Oh, I think some do. One needs only to be on certain threads and witness the Bomb Mecca crowd, but imo they are not the Majority of those objecting. Nonetheless, you cannot read that thread and advance the argument folks have behaved rationally from the start.
Many folks on both sides have been close minded from the start, accepting only what they want to believe, ready to string up the President on one end or hang dissenters on the other. Spreading misinformation and spin that suits their arguments. People are talking past each other and if you think that serves anyones interest let alone the countries you are sadly mistaken.
You pose me a question. I ask you in return one. When have I objected to folks raising their voice against any deal at any time? You'll have a good effort in finding a statement to nail me with. I don't object to the "objections". I object to the irrationality, the behavior of some folks that led a Congresswoman to write a "hell No" brief statement to the President instead of a factual, thoughtful, and even passionate dissent, against the sale which would be acceptable. THAT is the height of hysteria and irrationality. Until that ceases discussion cannot be advanced readily.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Why is the 'then what' so amorphous? Seems to me an easy solution--the UAE may buy the Brit corp but must sell the port contract to an American company. If none will bite at the original terms, the government will have to sweeten the deal to ensure these ports are secure. Americans are willing to spend for national security in Iraq, they will be willing to spend it on the home front, too.
Sure, subsidy is not normally conservative. But American national security is the one thing I thought wasn't subject to penny-pinching. There is no on-the-books profit for running national defense anyway. Just as there was uproar upon finding we were contracting for TSA staff from outside the U.S., and we should have stopped that entirely, we shouldn't be doing this for American ports, even if it costs extra.
Right, no slam intended, I'm sure. /sarc As usual, you swoop in and toss insults then can't defend yourself so run away. Don't let the door hit you where God split ya.
As usual you won't STFU when you need too, especially when you are wrong.
I don't need to defend myself. I'm NOT in the wrong here. I've researched the issue. There's nothing to be this upset about, unless, that is, you WANT to side with Chuck Schumer and his union buddies.
That's on YOU, not me.
Pakistan's an ally in the WOT, shall we have them run the ports? We've also been told that Yemen and Saudi Arabia have cooperated -- so they'd be OK, also?
The bottom line is, every Arab/Muslim country will do what's best for themselves, to keep their largely ignorant populaces under control by keeping their wrath directed at "the other," and away from where it belongs -- the fat cats who sit on top of the oil money.
What does supporting the WOT mean nowadays -- funding terrorists but denying it? Letting terrorists escape prison? Recognizing the Taliban?
Some support.
Well .. we have a very, very vital military base which the UAE is leasing to us. It's VITAL to the WOT in Iraq - and if we should need to go into Iran - this base would be crucial.
To spit in these people's faces this way could cost us to lose that base. UAE is not perfect - but several people I consider knowledgable on the comings and goings of UAE has stated on TV that the UAE has recently passed laws making harboring a terrorist a crime .. and other related terrorist laws. While there is some question about their assisting us ENOUGH regarding terrorist bank accounts .. I don't have the info to say that's true or untrue.
So much of this has been blown sky-high - AS THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS DO - that some of the TRUTH about the deal has gone unreported and unrevealed.
I agree with you 199%, but I am yet to here of any American company, or Government entity that could run the ports. DHS or FEMA? Perhaps the Navy, but not on this scale. I'm against the deal, but would like to know the consequences.
Whether he vetoes depends on the congress.
You insist on making excuses to hide your bigotry.
Hey, pot, you can stop calling the kettle black now. You're the one who won't answer my questions and left with his panties in a wad, Alec Baldwin. Now you're back? How about telling me how having the UAE government running these ports is putting American security interests first? And it IS the UAE government, you're not disputing that, too, I hope. How about answering my other questions? Or are you going to go off on a Chuck Schumer tangent again while I call you out for being Jimmy Carter's pal?
...but conveniently makes no mention of the fact that 80% of the shipping terminals in LA are run by foreign entities and almost half of them are owned by the Communist Chinese.......
So the UAE Is poisoning the water they give to our troops?
so they are shooting missiles at our planes leaving the strip in the UAE?
No and no.
oh yeah Jimmy Carter is SUCH a good friend of mine...
LOL
it's knee-jerkers like yourself that are bringing this forum down with it.
FR is a laughingstock now as it was with Terri Schindler was murdered in Tampa.
This is my last post to you. Good day.
I smell Andy Card again. Orse Bush may be half as tone deaf/ dumb as the Demons say he is. He's a terrific place holder President. I expected more I guess..?
Oh give me a break......
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.