Foreign Port Ownership - Where is the Outrage?

Published on March 7, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Mar 07, 2006

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?

Moderateman

on Mar 07, 2006

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

Dr Guy

on Mar 07, 2006

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

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

bakerstreet

on Mar 07, 2006

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.

Dr Guy

on Mar 07, 2006

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.

davad70

on Mar 07, 2006

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?

bakerstreet

on Mar 07, 2006

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.

Dr Guy

on Mar 08, 2006

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.

Dr Guy

on Mar 08, 2006

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.

Daiwa

on Mar 08, 2006

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.

Dr Guy

on Mar 08, 2006

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.

Daiwa

on Mar 08, 2006

Typo Correction -

That's Congressman Hunter (Duncan, that is).

stevendedalus

on Mar 08, 2006

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?

Daiwa

on Mar 08, 2006

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.

davad70

on Mar 09, 2006

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!