Posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:25 AM PST by standingfirm
"Give it a rest please, I'm not in a union but the union bashing for the sake of it gets old after a while"
My, oh my, what a short memory you have--or did you forget about how the ILU went on strike with the intent of causing a recession just in time for the 2004 campaign?
Hmm and gee who was in charge in 1999, That's right the clintons and maddie albright.
If this deal goes through with all the bad publicity I'll be suprised but we need to keep calling anyway. It's unbelievable they'd even consider such a thing.
They weren't playing in the sunshine with OBL but look who was! Your friends!
We can deal with the unions internally, what we don't need are possible terrorists infiltrating our ports and blowing up our cities and killing people. After 9/11 I'd figure all this would be a no-brainer...
But the deal is already done. They are taking over March 1. I just hope our reps are being very loud. I don't care if they are democrats or republicans....this is a very bad deal.
"We can deal with the unions internally, what we don't need are possible terrorists infiltrating our ports and blowing up our cities and killing people."
Well, that is going to be a risk--and about the same level of risk--no matter who is running the operation. Perhaps we should simply close down our ports.
Agreed, we need to keep the heat on these people.
"Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals"
What were they hunting? Infidels no doubt.
Little old ladies with hair pins at Airports are "National Security Issues," but Islamists controlling U.S. ports aren't?
Lol...
"Eminent Domain over those port facilities will be expensive as hell--on the order of billions--and you're still not going to have buyers on the other side of the deal, because nobody's going to commit billions of dollars on a deal that could get reversed on a political whim. You'd end up with the federal government running those ports--and doing so with all the efficiency of the DMV."
With a national debt of 100 gazillion dollars, a few billion clams won't make much of a difference...will it? And as though Dubai is the ONLY country/entity willing to bid on the ports...
There's no need to do that, let's just keep them out of the hands of our sworn enemies, no matter how firendly they pretend to be.
US national security needs to be a factor in making decisions, not just pure capitalism.
The reason that only the two parties to the transaction must be considered is that -- as Milton Friedman recently pointed out -- there are more than two parties affected by these transactions.
The people of the US have a stake in this decision because we are all potential victims of our enemies.
You exalt capitalism over national security -- very short-sighted.
"There's no need to do that, let's just keep them out of the hands of our sworn enemies, no matter how firendly they pretend to be."
Again, please show me where the government of the UAE is our sworn enemy...
And financing 9/11.
"Well, that is going to be a risk--and about the same level of risk--no matter who is running the operation. Perhaps we should simply close down our ports."
No, what we should do is put the arab muslims in charge of Bush's security detail contracting/outsourcing our secret service...wonder how much we could get? 20 billion?
Any objections?
Hey Einstein -- The U.S. is an "infidel" nation, isn't it? Have you ANY clue about the Koran?
Or are you too busy extricating youself from your issue of the Enquirer from atop your "throne"?
Cut the revenue from corporate income tax in half because of late deliveries (which will equal late payment, which will equal late taxes). Guess who gets to make up the revenue shortfall? Yes, F16Fighter, open up your wallet and give Uncle Sugar lots of money!
And as though Dubai is the ONLY country/entity willing to bid on the ports...
There were exactly TWO bidders for P&O; one based in Singapore, and DP World. The Singapore outfit bailed out.
P&O and DP World are roughly equivalent in the port ops field to Halliburton in oil field ops--they're the people who can do the job, and everyone else is an also-ran.
Again, you're not reading the posts. There are hostile elements in all these Middle Eastern countries that despise us. It is naive to believe they can't bribe, intimidate or kill their way into the port operations. It is far too risky from a national security standpoint to take the chance it won't happen.
On one of the talk shows, I heard a clip of Chertoff saying that shoebomber Richard Reid was British, so what are we going to do, ban all British firms?
Now, until I heard that I thought Chertoff was straight and smart. I'm not so sure anymore. 458,372 ist attacks originated with mideast arab ist, including substantial connections with UAE to many of them including 911. UAE as a country is an Islamic country with, at best, dubious credentials in fighting ism, at worst, fully supporting ism. A government-owned and operated company is going to run major port facilities, universally acknowledged as key security nodes in the international system. Think: just one little container of thousands aboard one of thousands of ships is all it would take to get devastating weapons or chemicals into the country.
So Chertoff wants to compare this to Britain, a key ally in the war on , itself victimized, not in any way a major source of groups or support for and (outside healthcare) does not run companies of this kind? Because one dufus with a British passport tried to blow up his shoes 4 years ago on a plane? This is supposed to be an intelligent and straight answer? Hmmmmmm...
"Again, you're not reading the posts. There are hostile elements in all these Middle Eastern countries that despise us."
There are hostile elements in America that despise us, and you're letting them keep their property.
"It is naive to believe they can't bribe, intimidate or kill their way into the port operations."
And what would stop that from happenning with all Americans running the ports?
"It is far too risky from a national security standpoint to take the chance it won't happen."
So we're back to closing down the ports completely, because they could bribe, intimidate or kill their way into the port operations no matter WHO is running it.
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.