Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
It is because the piers were are ships tie up to can be made secure from terrorist attacks for the most part. By the way the sailors aren't allowed away from the pier area in uniform let alone on liberty. Civilian cloths are a requirement as is the buddy system.
More hysteria. Do you sleep in your bed at night, or hide under it?
"Very funny, Tulsa Ramjet, but the question remains...
Are we at this time ready to declare that Muslim countries
by the very fact of their "Muslimity" are not to be treated
as equal trading partners such as are the atheists of Communist China or the voo-dooists of Haiti? Well?"
Actually, ownership in C-stores is a wealth strategy by southwest asians/paks/indians. Why? Big income makers but tedious work.
Anyway, Muslim countries have a long way to go to prove themselves. And I honestly do not see a reason to have more review by state/local officials that will have to deal with the eventual port arrangements. I'll will defer to Dr. Savage on this on more due diligence required. I just like stirring a cooking pot.
Strange, I tell you where the opposition stems from and you immediately assume I hate all Muslims. Well no, I don't. But it just so happens that 99.9+% of the terrorism in the world today is committed by Muslims, and that's why folks are jittery about this deal. ....and the (relatively) secular nature of the UAE does little to allay fears. Both the UAE and Turkey may be more "enlightened" that most Islamic nations, but there are still plenty terrorists and terrorist sympathizers living there as citizens.
So? Who wields the club? Not the general public.
We've been allies with Saudi Arabia for years and the majority of the suicide bombers were Saudis.
"That was a disgusting allegation, festus."
Explaining why an otherwise sane man has gone completely balmy is the task at hand. I've seen the fruit of the vine explain many sane people going completely nuts every now and then. Unless one is a prohibitionist its not that disgusting.
Whats your theory ?
And there is the rub...this site is for grass roots conservatives..people who believe that the Constitution means what it says...nothing less...nothing more..at times though this site flirts with the "cult of personality"...
Would you mind the UAE owning a nuclear power plant here in the US if Americans still provided the security?
it might be time for them to expand into a new business.
after all, if you are to have us believe that "nothing will change" after the acquisition by the UAE, that "the same americans will be working the ports as were before" - then why wouldn't Halliburton be willing to take on a new enterprise - after all, nothing will change you claim, there are no security issues since that is done by DHS, so it should be easy for Halliburton to step in. all they have to do is change a few signs, and they will have an instantly profitable business.
there has to be some fundamental reason why a state owned UAE company, is so eager to acquire port operations. at from what I understand, they are paying a market premium for it.
but of course, god forbid I should be suspicions, it must be because I'm a racist.
So, you just hate Muslims, right? No matter what color they are.
Is religious bigotry more justifiable than racial bigotry?
Who cares...
I'm a Bigot and proud of it.
Just try to kill my Family!!!
Rotflol!
"Sorry for that slip-up...."
I'd say!
Well said. If President Gore or Kerry had threaten a veto (the first of their presidency) on this issue, the same Bushbots would be pushing for impeachment.
This is more ridiculous than even the Hutchison-Whompoa Chinese deal on taking over a Long Beach Port many years ago.
Yet another "Harriet Myers" moment by Dubya. Sometimes I wonder about our President and what he thinks.
I would bet that more than half the members here have no idea what is in the Constitution. If they did, they would already know that Congress couldn't stop this deal if they wanted to, and if they tried and got past Bush's veto, the Supreme Court would through it out in the blink of an eye.
But yeah, we all support the Constitution. Right.
I think he is. His eye make up is kinda heavy at times. (snicker)
Would you mind the UAE owning a nuclear power plant
...or a bio weapons lab? Just as long as we had an E-3 standing watch with his 9mm? ha ha.
Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.
We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view. For example -- and on the particular cartoon that was published -- I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.
This is the complete statement, and Mr. McCormack clearly did NOT go out of his way to "come out against the notion of a free press."
There is no legitimate debate without truth, Jeff.
When you lie, you lose.
No matter how much disdain you have for this President, it behooves you to be honest in your discussions.
And EV, I am surprised at you for encouraging Jeff's dishonesty. I thought more of you than that.
Humpty Dumpty.
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.