I Knew This Was Going To Happen

I was listening to a later night talk show tonight in the car. They played two pieces of the Bush speech from today.

I was impressed with what he said.

I had every intention of going home, jumping online and posting it, if I could find it.

To my surprise, I couldn't find it.

Actually, that was sarcasm, I knew I wouldn't find it.

What I did find was an odd twist on the speech.

Bush was talking about not leaving Iraq at this critical point.

But the way the MSM made it out was like this...

ABC: Bush to Iraqi's: Time to Get a Government
CBS: Bush Blames Saddam For Iraqi Violence
And just for good measure, what do all the Yahoo! users see?
Yahoo! News: Bush to Iraqi's: Time to Get a Government

I doesn't really matter which story you read, they're pretty much the same.

Bush doesn't have a government in Iraq, and he has to blame Saddam for his failure.

Unfortunately, I'm going to paraphrase because the MSM didn't find these comments important enough.

Bush said that if history has taught us anything, we went to Afghanistan to help their freedom fighters against the Russians. Then we left them, before they had a strong hold on victory. And because of it, Afghanistan became a haven for the Taliban.

I know the situations are not exactly the same, but the analogy is a good one. I would even make the same analogy about Viet Nam, look how we bailed on them, and look how that turned out. Of course, he couldn't use that analogy, because the average American wouldn't understand it.

But there was no mention of that part of the speech anywhere I found in the MSM.

CNN got a little closer than anyone else in the MSM.

Bush blames Iraq's instability on Hussein

"Iraq is a nation that is physically and emotionally scarred by three decades of Saddam's tyranny," Bush said in a speech to Freedom House, a more than 60-year-old independent organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world.

Bush said Iraq's instability "is the legacy of Saddam -- a tyrant who exacerbated ethnic divisions to keep himself in power."

Bush said it is vital to the security of Iraq that its police force not be infiltrated with Saddam loyalists or members of illegal militias. The violence has raised the urgency for forming a government representing all ethnic groups, he said.

The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities -- and to allow for further U.S. troop withdrawals this summer.

But the talks are fragile in a country with deep sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens.

"I know that the work in Iraq is really difficult," Bush said, adding that a free Iraq in the Middle East is important to the security of America.

He criticized lawmakers calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- a move that Bush said would have disastrous consequences for American security.

If troops were withdrawn now, Iraq would turn into a safe haven for terrorists, who could arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction and could attack moderate governments in the Middle East, he said.

"The Iraqi government is still in transition, and the Iraqi security forces are still gathering capacity," Bush said. "If we leave Iraq before they're capable of defending their own democracy, the terrorists will win."

I just find it interesting that the MSM left out the part where Bush warns us about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq right now.

Oh well, what can you expect.

Our media is retarded.

*No offense to the mentally challenged, I didn't mean to assert that our media was on your level, it's just an expression.

Just For Fun

I got an email full of quotes from Ronald Reagan.


Here are a few that we should be reminded of...


"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it continues to move, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."



We could just substitute the words 'Cold War' for 'Terrorism' and this could be adopted by our current President...

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose."


Ahh, and then a message to the Lefty Liberals that still stands today...

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."


And this is a beauty...

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."


And lastly...


"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenal of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."


Reagan was a great man, what else can you say?

Try And Say 'Bush Lied' Now!

So I'm watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, and his guest was General Georges Sada.

Who the hell is that, you ask?

He was one of Saddam Hussein's military advisors, and a truth-teller in a regime that made truth relative. A man who would dare to disagree with the dictator if it meant doing the right thing-even at the risk of his life. And somehow he survived, despite the fact that General Sada was an Assyrian and a Christian in a Muslim country.

In this exclusive book, General Georges Sada shares his amazing journey as an advisor to one of this world's most feared men. He tells the previously untold truth about Saddam's plot to destroy Israel with chemical weapons, to hide weapons of mass destruction, and to overtake the Arab world. He shares what Iraqis really think of the war to liberate their country, and what America has done right, and wrong in the Middle East.

That's who!

And he was on The Daily Show promoting his book Saddam's Secrets.

So to bottom line this, Jon asked him if Saddam in fact, had and hid WMD's.

Yes, was his answer.

And a slightly stunned Jon Stewart paused for a split second and asked if he had actually seen them, or is this second hand information...

I was glad he asked that question.

Because Sada's answer was that he had seen them, and said they were moved to Syria.

Jon seemed like he didnt' believe it.

Well believe it, Bush didn't lie, the WMD's were there, and we have been doing the right thing all along.

How will the Left spin this one?

I can't wait.

The Democrats have lost it.

They are still running against GW Bush with the elections nearing.

It was a small problem that Bush won't be running in the next election, but it may have been effective.

They could have probably sold the fact that Bush=Republican, Bush lied=Republicans lie, Bush went to war without reason=Republicans...

...You get the picture.

But now what?

What will Hillary do?

Here's my prediction.

Hillary: "Well America, That is why I voted FOR the war in Iraq!"

What a disgrace.

A Great Read From Infidel Bloggers Alliance

This is a great post from the IBA by Pastorius.

I'll post most of it, but go read the whole thing.

The French Are Beginning To Wake Up

“Nous sommes tétanisés,” said my French friend. [We are paralyzed.]

The French are beginning to wake up, beginning to lift up their Ostrich head from the sand. As opposed to the frequent dismissals I ran across in the past – when it wasn’t accusations of racism – I now met an increasing number of people willing to say, “we don’t disagree” (the French really don’t like to say “you’re right”). But, as my friend put it, we don’t know what to do. “We’re paralyzed.”

I haven’t been in France since last Spring, so a number of factors played in the mixture. Obviously the Fall (Ramadan) 2005 riots that started in the Parisian suburbs and spread through France sobered people considerably, despite the official position of the media, political, and academic elites that this was not a religious or cultural issue, but one of socio-economic inequities that could be solved by addressing those inequities. But more recently, there had occurred two things that sobered them considerably.

First, the Danish cartoons. Most every Frenchman I spoke with (especially the non-Jews, who are in most denial about the religious dimension) mentioned them. Even the French, who do not have much of a sense of humor about other people making fun of them, understood that the Muslim reaction revealed a level of immaturity beyond anything they had, in their cognitively egocentric slumber, ever imagined. It was for them a sobering look at a religious mafia, intimidating anyone who dare criticize it. The cultural gap between the French and an Islam which, they had begun to acknowledge, played an increasingly powerful role among its immigrant population, lay bare before their eyes.

Second, the slow torture of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish youth, kidnapped and tortured to death over a three-week period in one of the “territoires perdus” of the Republic, awoke the French to the depth of barbarity that had grown up under their noses. That Islamic hatred played a role came across unmistakably with the calls to the Jewish parents and the reading of Quranic verses over the sound of their son tortured in the background. But the gang was really more a mostly Muslim collection of immigrant sons from the hood, from the “territoires perdus.”

Indeed the most terrifying part of the tale came when the leader of the gang got arrested in the Ivory Coast (whence his parents had emigrated before his birth). His picture smiling and making the V sign with his fingers shocked people with its utter lack of any sign of conscience, and his subsequent interview confirmed the impression.

But those with eyes, like Nidra Poller, could see. Youssouf Fofana was not a religious fanatic poisoned by paranoid underground hatreds. Here was Nietzsche’s blond beast in blackface, without conscience, a predator who feels no need to apologize to his prey. Robust sadism. The barbarians at the gates… in the suburbs. And their neighbors, who remained silent for weeks as they heard the cries of the tortured youth – not even an anonymous call – illustrated how powerful the dominion of the killers in these territoires perdus.

That alone is worrysome enough, but at least it is waking up the people of France.

What got me was a comment on the post...

Urban intellectual France is totally paralysed and terminally fucked.

Maybe there are still some patriots in a few Islamafia-free zones in 'La France Profonde', and sympathisers in the military who have the will to sort things out, but even so the French solution to the Muslim problem could be very messy.

The alternative future for France is the Muslim solution to the French problem.

That says it all for me.

Where do you think The US is on that front?

Are we ready to deal with the Muslim problem?

Or are we going to wait until our elimination is part of the Muslim Solution for US?

The French are behind in dealing with it, and they are at a point that they will have to fight to save their country.

If The US keeps pandering to CAIR and the Muslim community, France is our future.

I don't know, like I said, I'm getting frustrated with The US lately.

I don't think we as a people will have the foresight to see this coming, just like France didn't.

Sadly, I have, and have for some time, had the opinion that it will take another major attack on The US before we, as a people, take the Muslim hatred of us seriously.

I hope I'm wrong.

But if the Mexican immigration issue is any indication, we'll be behind.

I have much to say about the Mexican immigration issue as well, but I'll save that for another time...

I'm So Frustrated

I have not been posting as much as I like, but that is due to my frustration with this country lately.

I know, all the more reason to post.

But here we are...

Hutchinson Wampoa, the Chinese shipping company that was thought to be a bigger problem than Dubai Ports Worlds, (I posted on that here), is going to take over screening for nuclear weapons in our ports.

That's just briliant!

They already had issues with importing weapons into our country, DP World didn't, and we could have written in provisions on that deal, but we're going with HW!

We could have also insisted that DP use the same stringent policies in all their ports around the world, but now we are screwed. We have no leverage, and now we get the default deal, that is HW.

Not to mention, the potential ramifications from blocking DP out. I posted on that here.

Good job American media! Good job Congress! Way to keep everyone informed. Way to not let politics get in the way of national security!

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A DEMOCRATIC MUSLIM?

You be the judge.

I was referred to this post in a fairly new Danish blog called Agora.

The "Democratic Muslim" is Naser Khader.

Jyllands-Posten, February 19, 2006
A Prize Immigrant
By Orla Borg
...

It was then Naser Khader decided. He had to stand up to the Imams.

In his view, the Imams don’t represent the Moslems of Denmark at all. They may speak for a few thousand, but there are 200,000 Moslems in Denmark.

He decided to form the Democratic Moslems to show that the majority of Moslems in Denmark want democracy. Inevitably this would have to lead to a showdown, a showdown with his Arch Enemy.

Khader versus Laban. (The Imam of Denmark that pushed for the protest of the cartoons)

This has so far lead to Laban calling Khader "a rat" at Friday prayers....

After two weeks, 800 Moslems have joined and 5000 ethnic Danes have joined a financial support group. A bank has donated 100000 DKK for rooms and entrepeneurs and businessmen are lining up to support the Democratic Moslems. Last week they were warmly welcomed by PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen in his official residence at Marienborg....

A Life of Threats

Privately, Khader pays daily. He has received several death threats, mostly from people he consider Islamists...Naser Khader is followed by two Security Agents when he arrives in a dark blue Peugeot 605 on loan from the Intelligence Service of the Police for our meeting in central Copenhagen...

Why form this network? You’re risking your life, after all…

"For me it’s about identity and existence and life and death. I see the fundamentalist ‘cerebral haemorrhage’ close in around me. I have people I know who sympathize with Bin Laden, people who start sending their children to Quran-schools, who sympathize with the regime in Iran - and that is my reason for intervening. I think that what is going on at present is the most important battle for values Denmark has ever fought. To stay on the sidelines would mean giving up my identity."

Publicans and Imams

What is your vision for the future?

"My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious. But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us - the Moslems of the West. My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy can be made to be compatable. If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can."

"Islam was once a religion which was about the personal relationship of man to Allah. But some Imams have intervened, like the publicans of the Bible and have taken for themselves the power of Allah."

So what do you think? Is he the real thing?

DON'T GIVE UP ON IRAQ YET!

Read this excellent article in Real Clear Politics on the MSM's failures in reporting and an "on the street" assessment by Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer, after his recent visit to Iraq after the Golden Mosque bombing.

Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.

Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.

Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.

Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.

The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.

The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.

Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.

The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.

Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues.

Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.

Not that we don't still have a long and perilous way to go but we certainly need some encouraging news from that side of the world.

"THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO" HIT LIST

The original 12 authors of the "The Freedom Manifesto" now have bounties on their heads. I also signed it here and am proud to be a part of this. Until we all have bounties on our heads and are willing to take the risks associated with fighting for freedom will we have the required unity to truely win this war.

I know not everyone is comfortable putting their names onto this petition supporting the Manifesto but I really feel it is time for people to stand up and be counted.

The pro-freedom demonstrations are now starting in the west and the US colleges are finally beginning to examine the cartoon controversy.

The Freedom Manifesto petition is aiming for 100,000 signatures and are averaging about 100 new signatures per day. Please sign up today.

This Could Have Ramifications...

So the Port Deal is dead.

Yeah! Good for us! No Arabs running our ports!

That is sarcasm, by the way, I know sarcasm doesn't always translate well to the written word.

Are we better off though?

I mean, isn't this for the best?

Well, I have a few concerns about potential fallout from this.

First, if Dubai Ports would have taken over the ports, they would not have been in charge of security!

That point was not mentioned enough throughout this process. I asked people every day, next to nobody I talked to knew that...

Now, the other arguement was that they could have been instramental in helping terrorists.

Fine, maybe they could, but after all we have been through with the UAE, do you really think they would have done something like that?

The UAE provided $6.572 billion in assistance to the United States during the 1991 Gulf War, and permits that country to use its air bases and ports, which are the only harbors in the Persian Gulf deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier. In the long run, the stability of the UAE is critical to the free flow of shipping though the Strait of Hormuz and the defense of the GCC from Iran and Iraq.

It hasn't all been perfect with the UAE and Dubai Ports since then, see my recent post.

So anyway, bottom line is that the UAE would not be in charge of port security. And doesn't it make sense that the UAE would, bend over backwards, to quote Bill Clinton, to make sure this venture goes well?

They would be under a microscope, and they would not want to lose their investment.

Those concerns are small compared to my bigger concern.

What does this mean for The US economically?

Today, next week, next month, Nothing.

But what about long term?

Here is one glaring example.

What do you think Boeing employees though about the DP Ports Deal?

I would guess they were all for it!

Here's why...

Boeing wins a $10 billion Emirates order for 42 Boeing 777 airplanes
Sunday, 20 November 2005
The Boeing Company and Emirates have announced today they have concluded contract negotiations for a firm order for 42 Boeing 777 airplanes with purchase rights for 20 additional airplanes. The deal was announced by Emirates Chairman Shaikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum at the Dubai Air Show and is valued at $9.7 billion at list prices.
Emirates' order is for 24 Boeing 777-300ERs, 10 777-200LR Worldliners and 8 777 Freighters.
When first current orders are delivered by late 2007, Emirates fleet will include 51 Boeing 777s. This new order for 42 Boeing 777s will see the airline becoming the largest Boeing 777 operator in the world.

We all know Boeing has some international competition, right?

I hate to say it, but if I were the UAE, I would say...

"OK, the US doesn't want us around, but they are happy to take our money?, SCREW THEM, I'll take our $10 billion to Airbus!"

I hope I'm wrong, I hope GW Bush did some diplomatic magic to smooth over the Ports Deal, and if this all goes bad, I hope our Congress and Media get their due blame for it.

I know that won't happen, it will be Bush's fault, just like everything else.

If They Won't Listen To Reason, Shut 'em Down!

E Mullah is from Pakistan, living in the US, he has become a friend of mine. This is a disturbing post from him...

Bush pats Musharraf for blocking my Blog

2 comments
"The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday directed the government to block internet sites displaying sacrilegious cartoons and called explanation from authorities concerned as to why these sites had not been blocked earlier." In order to comply with supreme court orders the GOPak has blocked all websites ending with www.--.blogspot.com. This action has resulted in blocking all weblogs and Mr. Bush, visiting Pakistan, has given a pat on Mr. Musharraf's back for blocking my Pakistani readers. Pakistani readers cannot read the blogs anymore but they are able to post web logs because the primary blogger address is not blocked. Thanks to those who started an internet-blog based cartoon war on Muslim sensibilities, believing that they can teach respect and freedom of speech to Muslim countires. Now we cannot teach them anything except how to close their doors.

Update: Joining hands to Condemn Censorship of Blogs in Pakistan (more here...)


Well, that's one way to deal with the Cartoon issue!

What Did He Say?

Ang Lee won the Oscar for Best Director for his gay cowboy flick.

Good for him.

After directing big budget Hollywood films, including an adaptation of Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" which was also in the running for a best film Oscar, Lee finally became a household name with "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". His Oscar for "Brokeback Mountain" has cemented his reputation.

Way to go, there is nothing like getting continued recognition for your work.

However, I don't know about that acceptance speech he gave...

Accepting his award, Lee said; "I just did this movie after my father passed away. More than any other, I made this for him ...

Ah yes, there's no better way to say, Thanks Dad, than making a gay-cowboy movie!

This Get's More And More Complicated

As I was driving home tonight I was listening to the radio.

The conversation was over the Port Deal that is on everyone's mind.

Essentially, the guest was saying that Dubai Ports coming in was a good thing!

Weird!, I thought.

But he said the worse alternative was the potential buyer that was out-bid.

That buyer was Hutchison Whampoa.

Now HW, he explains, is directly linked to the Chinese Government and Military, and they were the company blocked once before from the Port of Long Beach.

They are also partners of China Ocean Shipping Company, (COSCO).

COSCO was able to get into the Port of Long Beach, like I wrote about the other day.

The other thing is that they have been known to carry nuclear warheads and other weapons.

Pretty scary.

They (HW) have exclusive contracts on many Chinese ports, which shows how in they are with the Chinese Government.

They also run both ends of the Panama Canal, which was a concern for the guest of the program.

The funny thing is that when I got home, I found this little tid-bit...

2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about
foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a
Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal
was a mistake.

Speaking at the 92nd Street YMCA in Manhattan yesterday, Clinton told the Jewish Community Relations Council: "There are those who say we can't [prevent foreign governments from operating U.S. ports] because look what happened in the last 20 years ... You know, we have the Chinese running the Panama Canal. We have other government-controlled entities controlling our ports."

According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."

Now I would agree with her, that is a cause for concern. Especially since I'm thinking Dubai Ports is the lesser of these two evils.

But here is the irony.

Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.

When security concerns arose, then-President Clinton insisted that Chinese ownership posed no threat to canal operations, explaining that Hutchison was "bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner."

Let's recap, form my earlier post, in 1996 a COSCO owned ship docked in Oakland, was apprehended with thousands of automatic weapons meant for street gangs. The crew confessed to being ready to smuggle in everything from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missles, that could 'take out a 747'.

This is the company Bill Clinton said was bending over backwards...

And now Hillary is upset about them running the Panama Canal.

Looks like Bill's in trouble again, I guess he's used to it by now anyway.

Now, to further complicate things.

Dubai seems to have been a staging area of sorts to the 9/11 attacks, Dubai Banks were used to fund the attacks. Some unused moneys were even sent back to Dubai just before the attacks.

UAE defense minister Gen. Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, is basically funding CAIR. CAIR seems to me to be pretty anti-American, but that's not the biggest issue. Sheik Maktoum has links to Al-Qiada. He took half the UAE family to Bin Ladens camp, a trip that they later lied about to the US.

To add to the issue, Dubai Ports has been caught sanctioning Israeli products, however, that is against US law.

So what does that mean?

I wish I knew, if they were caught disrupting free trade with our allies in any way, what can we do?

Kick them out?

Maybe.

I hope that is what this cooling off period is about, setting ground rules.

I for one am glad that it didn't come down to Bush trying to force this on the American people.

He said that if Congress tried to block this deal, he would veto it.

If his only veto in his time in office was over this issue, I would lose all respect I have left for the guy.

We may at a point that we need to say sorry to Dubai Ports. If we are truly allies, they will understand. We must also make sure that HW is blocked as well.

Anyway, this just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

I wish I had a good prediction about where it will end up, but I don't.

Any thoughts?

"QUESTION OF THE DAY"

FU2RMAN & FRIEND'S
QUESTION OF THE DAY

In the country you are currently living in, what would be your best estimate (%) of how many adults HAVE SEEN the Mohammed Cartoons?

If you feel comfortable, please state your country. If not, then the continent you live on.

Everyone is invited to answer.

*********************************************
(Example)
Country: Brazil
HAVE SEEN Mohammed Cartoons: 50%

This Is What I Was Talking About!

Chinese Port Operator Linked to Weapons Smuggling

A ship owned by a Chinese government-run company that currently operates two giant terminals at the Port of Long Beach, California was found 10 years ago to have been used to smuggle a huge cache of illegal weapons - with the smugglers saying they planned to import missiles that could "take out a 747."

On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents discovered 2000 AK-47's in a container smuggled aboard the Empress Phoenix, a ship owned by the China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] docked at the Port of Oakland.

It was the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in the history of U.S. law enforcement.

Operatives nabbed after the seizure told investigators that they were ready to smuggle in everything from grenade launchers to shoulder-fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747."

But it begs the question, if Dubai Ports World - a company with no history of terrorism or smuggling operations into the United States - is unfit to play a role in U.S. ports management, what about Chinese companies?

In fact, the 1996 weapons smuggling operation was far from the only instance where questionable cargo has been discovered aboard COSCO vessels. Ships owned by the Chinese line have been repeatedly caught smuggling illegal immigrants in the United States.

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.

By the end of the decade, COSCO plans to expand its Long Beach facility into a giant five terminal operation covering 300 acres, according to the Long Beach Press Telegram.

So again, I ask the question, are we really going to throw a fit over Dubai Ports World, with no record of smuggling or terrorism in the United States, while we let China Ocean Shipping Co. have the run of Long Beach Harbor?

So what do we do?

Block DPW from taking over operations, and kick out COSCO?

That is Hillary's idea, and if that is what the majority of the US wants, I'm skeptical, but convince how this is a good idea...

Let's look at what we're proposing.

In 2001, for instance, COSCO ships carried 434,000 containers to the United States, representing 12.1 percent of all the goods shipped between China and the United States.

And what is next?

Kick Japan out of the US Auto Industry?

I know, that was over the top, but we're looking in the wrong place here anyway.

The issue is not really who operates the ports, the issue, and the reason the ports are currently vulnerable to terrorism, is our own government.

We need to step up security at all of our ports.

This is the perfect opportunity to do it.

Here's how it would work, Fu2rman style...

Dubai Ports wants in, no problem, but, there is going to have to be a new tax on every container to help pay for the added security the US Government is providing.

That way the entire cost of security is not passed on to the US taxpayer.

Then, when they agree to the deal, and because it wouldn't be fair to single them out, every port operator takes on the same tax burden.

If there is a smuggling or terrorist issue, there will be an investigation. If they were guilty or negligent in any way, they would pay heavy fines.

Second infraction, you lose your status as a port operator, no refund, nothing but a don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

At this point, with our ports being operated by foreign interests all around our country, what are we really able to do?

And, what are we prepared to do?

If we pull every operators status, and kick them out, what are the ramifications?

Will other countries kick American companies out of their ports?

Will they block American made products from being imported to their country? We already here enough crap over our trade deficit, can you imagine?

On top of all this, we would be kicking out allies of ours.

If we kicked British companies out of our ports, how do you think that would go over?

If we weren't already thought of as the A-Holes of the world, we sure would after that.