That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

Everybody relax. I figured out how it happened.

"In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports
World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime
Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's operations in
Europe and Latin America."

Any questions?

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Everybody relax. I figured out how it happened.

"In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai
Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's
Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's
operations in Europe and Latin America."

Any questions?


Yes.

When will you understand the difference between *operating* a port and
*providing security* at a port? If you think that *operating* it will
result in a terrorist threat then *all* UAE operations touching US soil
should be banned.

That is not to say that I agree with this purchase as not all the facts have
been released.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

wrote:

Forgive me if this is a bad analogy, but if Bush is pushing to sell
ports to the UME, then is this any comparison to Carter giving away
the lease on the Panama Canal, and about 10 mil for the transfer?

UME? UAE! Another case of bad typing.... ;)

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Everybody relax. I figured out how it happened.

"In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai
Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's
Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's
operations in Europe and Latin America."

Any questions?


Yes.

When will you understand the difference between *operating* a port and
*providing security* at a port? If you think that *operating* it will
result in a terrorist threat then *all* UAE operations touching US soil
should be banned.

That is not to say that I agree with this purchase as not all the facts
have been released.

Are you referring to the business connections between the UAE and the Bush
family and several Bush appointees?

No he referring to 7/11 chain.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...



That is not to say that I agree with this purchase as not all the facts
have
been released.

Yeah, I don't know enough about it to draw any conclusions

Forgive me if this is a bad analogy, but if Bush is pushing to sell
ports to the UME, then is this any comparison to Carter giving away
the lease on the Panama Canal, and about 10 mil for the transfer?


Sort of different. This is our soil. Panama is not. And, if you agree with
JimH on the idea that there's an impenetrable wall between operations and
security of the ports, you'll want to be sure to live another 20 years, so
you can read (in history books) about the people at the CIA & NSA who are
now trying to tell the president that this UAE thing is a dangerous idea.
You won't hear about it now, but it most certainly *will* be historical
fact.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

Sort of different. This is our soil. Panama is not.

Panama is Panama *because* of the US. And the Canal Zone was under US
control "in perpetuity" until Jimmy Carter gave it away to a corrupt
dictator. Them's the phacts.

--
Skipper

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:59:13 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:

Sort of different. This is our soil. Panama is not.

Panama is Panama *because* of the US. And the Canal Zone was under US
control "in perpetuity" until Jimmy Carter gave it away to a corrupt
dictator. Them's the phacts.

Enlighten us. What Panamanian gave us the Canal "in perpetuity"? Or what
Colombian for that matter? Yup, we stole the Canal Zone fair and square.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:59:13 -0600, Skipper wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:

Sort of different. This is our soil. Panama is not.

Panama is Panama *because* of the US. And the Canal Zone was under US
control "in perpetuity" until Jimmy Carter gave it away to a corrupt
dictator. Them's the phacts.

Enlighten us. What Panamanian gave us the Canal "in perpetuity"? Or what
Colombian for that matter? Yup, we stole the Canal Zone fair and square.

Are you suggesting that Scupper should attempt to locate and visit the
public limebrerry?

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

thunder wrote:

Panama is Panama *because* of the US. And the Canal Zone was under US
control "in perpetuity" until Jimmy Carter gave it away to a corrupt
dictator. Them's the phacts.

Enlighten us. What Panamanian gave us the Canal "in perpetuity"? Or what
Colombian for that matter? Yup, we stole the Canal Zone fair and square.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107870.html

And if you wich to review the source material:

http://tinyurl.com/fe6k

--
Skipper

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

thunder wrote:

Panama is Panama *because* of the US. And the Canal Zone was under US
control "in perpetuity" until Jimmy Carter gave it away to a corrupt
dictator. Them's the phacts.

Enlighten us. What Panamanian gave us the Canal "in perpetuity"? Or
what Colombian for that matter? Yup, we stole the Canal Zone fair and
square.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107870.html

And if you wich to review the source material:

http://tinyurl.com/fe6k

LOL, Google is your friend, use it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1903panama.html

--
Skipper

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:25:35 -0600, Skipper wrote:


And if you wich to review the source material:

http://tinyurl.com/fe6k

LOL, Google is your friend, use it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1903panama.html

Another copy of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, how quaint. Since you
avoided my question, I'll give you a hint. The P. in P. Bunau-Varilla
stands for Phillipe.

So, would you like to explain how an engineer with the failed French
attempt to build a canal, comes to sign a Panamanian Treaty with the US?
Yup, we stole it fair and square.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

thunder wrote:

So, would you like to explain how an engineer with the failed French
attempt to build a canal, comes to sign a Panamanian Treaty with the US?
Yup, we stole it fair and square.

The French had a substantial stake in the Canal. There was a railroad
and legacy force to consider. Their compliance was required.

http://www.czbrats.com/Builders/FRCanal/failure.htm

--
Skipper

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:52:39 -0600, Skipper wrote:

thunder wrote:

So, would you like to explain how an engineer with the failed French
attempt to build a canal, comes to sign a Panamanian Treaty with the US?
Yup, we stole it fair and square.

The French had a substantial stake in the Canal. There was a railroad and
legacy force to consider. Their compliance was required.

http://www.czbrats.com/Builders/FRCanal/failure.htm

So again, what Panamanian gave the US a right "in perpetuity"? Surely, a
Frenchman doesn't speak for the people of Panama.

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

Skipper wrote:

thunder wrote:

So, would you like to explain how an engineer with the failed French
attempt to build a canal, comes to sign a Panamanian Treaty with the US?
Yup, we stole it fair and square.

The French had a substantial stake in the Canal. There was a railroad
and legacy force to consider. Their compliance was required.

http://www.czbrats.com/Builders/FRCanal/failure.htm

Further, regarding you statement about "stealing it fair and square", in
truth, we bought it fair and square. First, we recognized the
Panamanians in their struggle for independance and offered to protect
them from invaders. Second, we made substantial contributions to their
floundering country by funding their government.

Alaska cost the US $7.2 Million. The Louisiana Purchase from France cost
the US $15 Million. The small Canal Zone strip was PURCHASED for $10
Million up front and a quarter-million dollars per year in perpetuity,
AND $40 million the the French, not inconsequential sums unless you're a
Democrat. Suppose we are lucky Carter didn't give away Alaska and the
Louisiana Purchase territories.

--
Skipper

That "who controls the ports thing"...
 

thunder wrote:

The French had a substantial stake in the Canal. There was a railroad and
legacy force to consider. Their compliance was required.

http://www.czbrats.com/Builders/FRCanal/failure.htm

So again, what Panamanian gave the US a right "in perpetuity"? Surely, a
Frenchman doesn't speak for the people of Panama.

You must be a Dumbocrat.

--
Skipper