Re: Blistering editorial on Dubai: Wash Post

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:27:30 -0800, Walter Karmazyn
<walterkarmazyn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Like McCarthy? Yeah. McCarthy would assassinate you verbally if you
didn't give an answer he wanted to hear. Sanders' soundbite did the
same, as far as DPW was concerned, one of many cheap shots.


And please remember it was me who brought up on this ng that the
government of Singapore would've been the new owners of these leases if
the UAE hadn't purchased them.

And please remember it was me who responded by pointing out that
there's a significant difference between Singapore and the UAE when it
comes to our security interests.

And that Red China holds leases like these to port terminals.

And there's even a difference between Red China and the UAE.

And DPW purchased their leases from a company controlled by foreign
nationals, in this case the British. Japanese nationals also hold
leases, as does the Government of Singapore and Danish nationals, for
starters.

Some of these leases run as long as 25 years, anybody want to guarantee
that any government involved (like say China) will be on the same good
terms with us for that long? Will foreign nationals like the Brits or
Danes or Japanese look out for our national interest over their own,
politically or economically, if things change from what is now the norm?

From the start I expressed the opinion that our ports of entry should
be controlled by domestic interests, not UAE, Singapore,China, foreign
nationals, etc.

I don't disagree. Hopefully, this incident will wake people up to the
idea.

As this particular issue has been put to rest, do we see congress or the
public clamoring to keep our ports of entry in domestic hands by putting
forth some legislation to start changing things?

Not really.

Time will tell.

Shows how much of a security threat a foreign owned company is
considered, all things taken into account (customs and the Coast Guard,
who run port security; FBI and other agencies and military they can call
in if needed). Something else I pointed out 2 weeks ago, when some
rmgder's were saying this would give the Arabs an opportunity to
sabotage the channels leading to our ports by clogging them with dumped
containers.

You continually fail to make the critical distinction between a
"foreign owned company" and a "foreign owned company controlled by a
government that has known links to the terrorists who launched the
worst attack in history on our soil". I'm not sure why that is.

And I also made mention that folks might want to investigate the
connections between the UAE royal family and the Bush family, which do
exist. Sanders also brought up the human rights violations of UAE, good
time to ask why IBM and Microsoft lead American companies operating in
their free trade zone, if we're so down on them and their human rights
record, or any terrorist connections. One might want to talk about the
Dubai-based Halliburton company doing illegal business with Iran. That
was discussed here a while back, guess everybody forgot where they were
operating out of.

Common sense was not in operating mode here, arabphobia or muslimphobia was.

W


.

Relevant Pages

  • {OT} insanity
    ... Giving control of our ports to the UAE or any other foreign outfit is ... American ports. ... a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: "Bush vows ports deal will stand"
    ... You do understandf that the UAE is barely an "oil producer" at all, ... Dhubai Ports World offers somewhat higher security than the ... (as a note Texas produces about .9 mbpd, Alaska about .86 mbpd, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: "Bush vows ports deal will stand"
    ... You do understandf that the UAE is barely an "oil producer" at all, ... Dhubai Ports World offers somewhat higher security than the ... Dubya about the repercussions. ... The US either approves or disapproves, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Height of Stoopidity
    ... The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight ... Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam ... The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly ... Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors)
  • Re: Blistering editorial on Dubai: Wash Post
    ... And please remember it was me who brought up on this ng that the government of Singapore would've been the new owners of these leases if the UAE hadn't purchased them. ... Will foreign nationals like the Brits or Danes or Japanese look out for our national interest over their own, politically or economically, if things change from what is now the norm? ... From the start I expressed the opinion that our ports of entry should be controlled by domestic interests, not UAE, Singapore,China, foreign nationals, etc. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading