EURweb

Back to the Article » Click Here

Click here to post your comments.

Name: Kofi

Comment: WTF!!! Did the repubs cut off the checks? An actual political piece that does not simply repeat the Bush mantra.

Name: blackman

Comment: LOL@Kofi

Name: MzTee

Comment: ====>KOFI...you beat me to it (LOL). This is the second piece in a row where JCP has strayed from the republican roadmap.

Name: SpelmanRho

Comment: What the crap ?! We cozy up to the Saaudi's and they have the same things going on. What Mr. Phillips failed to acknowledge is that this administration is embarrassed (as they should be) because the "The Arabs are coming" atmosphere they created to justify EVERYTHING since 911 hit them in the ONLY place it matters for Republicans, in their pockets. MANY of our port TERMINALS (just like a terminal in an airport) are owned by non-Arab foreign countries who have had problems with terrorism. Ever heard of Abu Saiyef ? Moreover, Even if the terminals are foreign owned , they have to be manned by members of the United State's longshoreman union. So, again I say this whole hub-bub about DPW was a result of some narrow minded racist sentiments created by the Bush administration and not one bit about making the public any safer than we were before 9/11. And if the people REALLY rule in the US, why aren’t the troops coming home ? Bush himself said that he will not run the war based on public opinion. Seems like the people only rule when it’s in the best interest of whom ever is in the White House.

Name: VickiE

Comment: There is nothing left to be said here. I guess it's a "slam dunk". LOL....

Name: SilentJay

Comment: God dammit just when you think JCP has drunk the whole cup of rasberry co-sign republican Kool-Aid he smacks you up side the head with a completely original thought and I have to say I with him. SpelmanRho say it with me Foreign Companies not Foreign Countries, we have ports being run by companies that happen to come from other countries. DPW is a country that wanted to own the shiping ports of American shores. DPW is a country that has had dubious ties to terrorism including ties to Al Queda. They also have to ties to slavery in northern Africa. No No No you don't have a country that has that kind of record owning ports along the East coast of the country. Go back and read what John said. This isn't about racism beacaue were not talking about race were talking about nationality. You can't have a nation with that kind of track record owning American ports even if american union workers handle the daily operations. But you're right about Bush being wishy washy. In this congressional election year he walking a tight rope and its not looking good for GW.

Name: SilentJay

Comment: My bad UAE is the country but it and DPW are virtually on in the same because DPW is owned by the Unitet Arab Emerit.

Name: SilentJay

Comment: I meant "one in the same"

Name: dcdouglass01

Comment: Ear and voice of the people, huh? If Bush would only listen to that, i.e., "listen" to the polls of his approval ratings, he'd resign.

Name: SpelmanRho

Comment: >SilentJay: What's the real difference ? Why does it really matter if the terminal (not the port) was owned by a foreign country or company if the real concern is about possible terrorist infiltration ? Heck the port could be owned by a British or even American company and have greater probability of that occurring.

Name: SilentJay

Comment: There is a different set of rules for a company running a business and a country running a business. DPW is controllled by the country called the United Arag Emerit and if read what I wrote earlier about some of the shady stuff that the country has been linked two you would see why it really wasn't a good Idea whether it was port or a terminal. The United States and Brittain do not run companies they run goverments, so the probabilty of an attack from say BRITTAIN is very unlikely. HOWEVER the probability of company run by country with financial ties to Al Queda and yes there has been evidence of financial transactions being made through UAE banks by Al Queda might 1 out of 100 or 100 out of 100. Either way that is to big of a chance for America to take. That is the difference SpelmanRho

Name: SpelmanRho

Comment: >SilentJay: I read your post, you're still missing my point. Whether the company is run by a country or by a company based in a particular country, the concern about the DPW was the threat of infiltration of terrorists into the ports via this company with Arab affilitaion. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's owned by a country or a company ANY organization could be infiltrated by terrorists. A company owned by a British conglomerate could just as easily be infiltrated by the radical Islamist that operate in that country. I'm saying that the whole reason DPW was targeted is that it's an Arab country and that type of short-sightedness (which is racial) is dangerous and counter productive. Again, I use the examples of Abu Sayef and Jamal Islamia (responsible for the Bali bombings). If we're going to tighten port security, do so all around. It shouldn't ONLY be done in cases that fit our "profile" for terrorist ie. anything Arab in origin. Case in point my father, a Captain and MSO in the US Coast Guard, told me of a huge bust that recently happened in Miami. Members of the longshoreman’s union (AMERICAN members) who were supposed to have applicants credentials checked (in order to be in the union and work the docks) were PAYING OFF members of the MIAMI police department. The background checks weren’t being done; consequently there were felons with weapons and drug raps working the ports. Now, that’s the type of BASIC DOMESTIC stuff that needs to be taken care of in order to BEGIN to seriously address the issue of port security. We won’t even talk about the lack of funding for the USCG….

Name: SilentJay

Comment: Would you sell ports to a country or company that has financial ties to a terrorist orgninization. regardless of thier race or nationality. I agree with you that any one can be a terrorist. I haven' forgotten about Oklahoma when those two white boys blew up a government building and everyone thought that does done by people from some Middle East country. I agree there is alot of racism in the world. I agree that the port situation is messed up on alot of levels but compounding the problem by selling our ports to a country company that been linked with the same terrorist orginization that killed nearly 2000 people doesn't make sense. I don't care that they're Arabs I really dont. What I do care about is the fact that the United Arab Emerit tried to hide from investigators the money wiring that Al Queda was using through thier banking system. Did you get that part thier BANKING SYSTEM.

Name: SpelmanRho

Comment: >SilentJay: We'll have to agree to disagree.

Name: SilentJay

Comment: I went back to CNN and looked at the report I orginally got this from. I wanted you to know I'm not just co-signing to JCP. I wouldn't be comfortable with any country that has ties to a terrorist orgninization owining ports here. It could be the Swedish for that matter and I wouldn't be comfortable with the Swedes running ports in the United States. Now if the US government has another Arab counry in mind that would like buy some port space from us fine. But if we find out that they ties Al Queda or anybdoy else don't you think we have the right to say no this isn't going to work. I mean if we found out that we had company right now in ports linked MS13 even if it is only financially you mean to tell we should still do business with that country regardless. I guess we just going to have to disagree on this one.

Click here to post your comments.

Back to the Article » Click Here

...