"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, *and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in Iraq.
But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to let the 4th
ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to let
the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to
stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby.
The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to
let the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.




Not if they cannot unite. If things get worse you will see an uproar over
here to get the hell out. Many who once supported the effort will change
their mind. I will be part of that group.

My friends son is now on his way to the NC. He finished his tour at the
right time.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to
stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby.
The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such
a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.
NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman,
*and*
the UAE.

We had basing rights in Turkey, too, leading up to the second war in
Iraq. But at the last minute, the Turks got cold feet, and refused to
let the 4th ID drive down from the north.


We're not about to make the same mistake again.




Yeah, like we can control this, eh?

Yes.



Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Absolutely.




Not if they cannot unite. If things get worse you will see an uproar over
here to get the hell out. Many who once supported the effort will change
their mind. I will be part of that group.

My friends son is now on his way to NC. He finished his tour at the
right time.


edit

Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in
the war on terror.



NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over
a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights
in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends.
It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase
in
the war on terror.

NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.


Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not. But
not important infrastructure that has anything to do with national
security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our airports, our water
treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses, our highways, our
hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the AEC, a nuclear power
plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the Bush Administration is
planning to sell off.


So you believe that *Bush* is selling the port operations?

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute
over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians
occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that
island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing
rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends.
It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next
phase in
the war on terror.

NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to allow
Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have invested in
countries around the world.


Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not.
But not important infrastructure that has anything to do with national
security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our airports, our water
treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses, our highways, our
hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the AEC, a nuclear power
plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the Bush Administration is
planning to sell off.

UAE firms have operated in the port of Houston since the 90's, without
any controversy or fear. As I said, this is a PR mistake, not a
Security Issue.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

Harry Krause wrote:

I am especially opposed to any Arab nations.

Yep, that says it all.

--
Skipper

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...


So you believe that *Bush* is selling the port operations?


Irrelevant. Strike the comment from the record.

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need
to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute
over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The
Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that
island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa
Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing
rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his
friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next
phase in
the war on terror.
NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain
away this latest screw-up of you know who.
This is a screw-up from a PR stand point. It does make sense to
allow Arab companies invest in our country, the same way we have
invested in countries around the world.

Oh, I agree. An office building, a soap manufacturing plant. Why not.
But not important infrastructure that has anything to do with
national security. I don't want Arabs running our ports, our
airports, our water treatment plants, our waste disposal businesses,
our highways, our hospitals, our few remaining defense plants, the
AEC, a nuclear power plant, Los Alamos, NASA, or whatever else the
Bush Administration is planning to sell off.

UAE firms have operated in the port of Houston since the 90's, without
any controversy or fear. As I said, this is a PR mistake, not a
Security Issue.


If I were POTUS, I'd not allow any foreign companies or governments to
"operate" or be involved in anything in connection with our national
security, and that includes ports, of course.

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

If a Muslims or Arab owns a business in the Empire State Building or
Rockefeller Center, should we not allow him to own the business because
he could place a bomb in the building and blow it up. Sounds like you
have an argument that would insure we do not allow any Muslims or Arabs
to own any business in the US.

Wither you know it or not, you are acting like a bigot.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************