Foreign Port Ownership - Where is the Outrage?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/28/114741.shtml?s=et
from JoeUser Forums

Here we have demonstrable proof of a terrorist nation trying to smuggle in weapons into the US through Terminals they own, and no one says a word?  Why?  This is a nation that holds no love to the US, and indeed has rattled a saber at us and others countless times, yet they run Ports (terminals) here in the US!

Have you heard any outrage about it?  Where is Hillary Clinton and Chuckie Schumer on this issue?  Why are they so silent?  Could it be that the country tried this in 1996 with a shipload of AK-47s?  nah!  Timing means nothing.  Oh, wait, Bush was not President then.  I wonder who was?

But we have hard proof of their duplicity and illegal dealings and they still own a port! (Terminals)

So where is the outrage?  It is a foreign government that is hostile to the US!  Where is the Outrage?

Oh, pardon me.  Did I forget to mention it is China and the ports (terminals) are in Long Beach?

Sorry, I forgot that little detail Hillary and Chuckie.

politics
6,042 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

In 2001, COSCO ships delivered weapons to Cuba, a move that triggered calls in the United States for sanctions against China, according to the Washington Times.

Even Proof of conspiring with known enemies, and yet where is the outrage?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am outraged over the lack of outrage from the left.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am outraged over the lack of outrage from the left.

I should say the same, but I have come to expect it.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
People aren't scared of the Chinese. Dems have for years accused the Bush administration of using terror fears to accomplish their political aims. By picking out this one nation to have qualms with they are just proving they aren't doing anything different themselves.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

People aren't scared of the Chinese.

Speak for yourself!  A nation of 1.2 billion does scare me no matter how much I like Moo Goo Gai Pan.  While Dubai and the UAE do not.

But I do see your point, even if this smacks of the worst hypocrisy in Washington since Benedict Arnold.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why are you singling out Hillary and Schumer? There are just as many republicans, if not more, who have been critical of the UAE deal? Because the GOP was opposed to the Cinda deal in 96? No, that can't be it because they weren't against it either.

Hmmm...what reason could there be that it's ok for them, but not the Dems?

I was about to say because you're a Republican. But you're not are you? You claim to be Independant, right?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because Republicans make no bones about wanting to single out Islamic nations, etc. Dems have Al Gore going around the world telling people how awful we are to single out Middle Eastern citizens, and at the same time they want to single out Middle Eastern businesses in this deal.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hmmm...what reason could there be that it's ok for them, but not the Dems?

You seem to know how I think, so I dont guess I have to answer you.  But on the off chance that you do not know how I think, maybe I will.

Why did I single out those 2?  because they have been the most shrill (did you know that Bill and Jimmy SUPPORT the deal?  SHOCK!).  Did I say that no republicans were guilty?  If so, please point it out as I missed that quote of mine.

So all you have to say is "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah - so's your mother".  A very intelligent repost.  Now if you want to quit playing Karnac the Magnificent and actually address the issue, maybe we can get away from the school yard taunts.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Because Republicans make no bones about wanting to single out Islamic nations, etc. Dems have Al Gore going around the world telling people how awful we are to single out Middle Eastern citizens, and at the same time they want to single out Middle Eastern businesses in this deal.

There is a big stink coming from the holier than thou side of racial profiling in this case.  But of course everyone knows that democrats are incapable of racist bigotry.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Congressman Duncan's bill would require majority US ownership and majority US governance of any port terminal lessee, whether the company is from a friendly nation or not. That may be problematic in implementation but is not a bad idea per se. It would mean that DPW could still operate US terminals provided the company actually holding the lease or contract met the bill's requirements. So, strictly speaking, at least in this bill, Republicans are not targeting or singling out Arab nations or companies.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

may be problematic in implementation but is not a bad idea per se.

I agree.  But until such time as this gets out of the 30 second sound bites and into rational discusion, I will call a spade a spade.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Typo Correction -

That's Congressman Hunter (Duncan, that is).
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
But until such time as this gets out of the 30 second sound bites and into rational discusion, I will call a spade a spade.
You're doing okay with your own 30sec soundbites!
How can there be outrage when it is status quo for American business not to take the responsibility of doing business in its own country. Where's its ingenuity--is it that difficult for a US corporation to run a seaport?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The market is politically neutral, steve - if a US corporation saw an opportunity to make money running terminals, they'd be all over it. There are indeed US companies operating terminals, but perhaps there is more business to be had than US companies can absorb. Regardless, the market speaks for itself.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You seem to know how I think, so I dont guess I have to answer you. But on the off chance that you do not know how I think, maybe I will.

Why did I single out those 2? because they have been the most shrill (did you know that Bill and Jimmy SUPPORT the deal? SHOCK!). Did I say that no republicans were guilty? If so, please point it out as I missed that quote of mine.

So all you have to say is "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah - so's your mother". A very intelligent repost. Now if you want to quit playing Karnac the Magnificent and actually address the issue, maybe we can get away from the school yard taunts.


I'm not Karnac at all, you're just way too predictable.

It just amuses me how you rant about the Dems opposing the port deal, calling them the "most shrill", when it's Republicans who are the ones who are actually blocking the deal. Link However much Hillary and Schumer may rant about it, they're not the ones holding the cards.

I don't blame the Republicans for opposing the deal, it is an election year afterall. I just think it's hypocritical of you to single out two Dems who aren't actually capable of blocking it.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The capitulation of DPW today signals the victory of abject fearmongering over facts and common sense. I'm ashamed of the Republicans who jumped on this bandwagon and refuse to defend them. This is a horrible example of how easily and crazily distorted an issue can become in the "twisted sound-bite" age. Poll-driven political expediency was pathetic when the Dems ran the show and it's pathetic now.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're doing okay with your own 30sec soundbites!
How can there be outrage when it is status quo for American business not to take the responsibility of doing business in its own country. Where's its ingenuity--is it that difficult for a US corporation to run a seaport?

I appreciate your accolades.  But your reasoning is very xenophobic, and if all responded in kind, no American Business would be doing business anywhere else.  Hello Google.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

The market is politically neutral, steve

Exactly!  Why force a Microsoft to run a terminal?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not Karnac at all, you're just way too predictable.

It just amuses me how you rant about the Dems opposing the port deal, calling them the "most shrill", when it's Republicans who are the ones who are actually blocking the deal. Link However much Hillary and Schumer may rant about it, they're not the ones holding the cards.

I don't blame the Republicans for opposing the deal, it is an election year afterall. I just think it's hypocritical of you to single out two Dems who aren't actually capable of blocking it.

First, your Karnac sucks as you cant predict.  You cant even elucidate your own position.  Second, while yes the republicans were part of the lynch mob (see my followup and ShadowWars) that is not enough for you as we have to fall on a sword when we disagree with some of our side, a symptom you can never be accused of.

Finally, no one said you could not single out 2 republicans to chastise if you so desire, so in the words of Shades of something, dont lecture me.  And I will add, on my blog!

You dont like my blog?  Write your own.  You dont agree with it?  Try debating it.  You have done none of that yet.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is a horrible example of how easily and crazily distorted an issue can become in the "twisted sound-bite" age. Poll-driven political expediency was pathetic when the Dems ran the show and it's pathetic now.

Yes it is.  Even more so because we expect better from republicans, we expect this from democrats.