In article .com, Joe
wrote:

It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

Yeah, Joe, sure it is. Anything can be made out to be national security.

I mean, you can't get more fundamental than food, can you? Why don't
you forbid foreign corporations or individuals from owning productive
agricultural land?

Then there's telecoms. Better reserve that for US only.

What about steel & other metals? Better do them too, just to be safe.

Etc.

Hypocrisy, Joe, pure hypocrisy.

PDW

In article et, Bob
Crantz wrote:

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.

Wasn't it Heinlein that said there's nothing so expensive as a second
best military?

PDW

"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments. Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil. But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?

"Vito" wrote in message news

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil
for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Invading Europe?

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et, Bob
Crantz wrote:

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which
it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think
we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who
never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because
they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.

Wasn't it Heinlein that said there's nothing so expensive as a second
best military?

True, but who bears the expense? In today's world the US pays for the best
and second best militaries.


PDW

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of
you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then
major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has
maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments.
Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA
has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil.
But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up
America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and
grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like
Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

And that would be bad for Americans?

Joe

Mercantilism advocates trade restrictions through restriction of
imports and expansion of exports so as to accumulate gold and foreign
exchange.

This is a broad defination of what I do in order to afford to sail off
into the sunrise, sailing the world re-dispensing my aquired gold and
currency.

It's a good plan and works for me, why should it not work for the USA?

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mercantilism advocates trade restrictions through restriction of
imports and expansion of exports so as to accumulate gold and foreign
exchange.

This is a broad defination of what I do in order to afford to sail off
into the sunrise, sailing the world re-dispensing my aquired gold and
currency.

It's a good plan and works for me, why should it not work for the USA?

Joe



Joe,

If the government passed a law that said you will receive an annual salary
of $1 million per annum, it defintitely works for you.

So why not do it for everyone in the US?

Whats that got to do with taking in less then you shell out?

Joe