#1) I did register for the service in 1973. It happend to be 4 months before my 18th birthday when I did. In "I think" August your friend "the other Dick" changed the service to all volunteer. Needless to say the mood of the country wanting to serve in vietnam or overseas for that matter were very negitive so I did not need to enter the service and that was that. I would have gone to serve if necessary.

#2) Spaceport and UAE was in the news. OK ...What does this mean to us in the US? NOT MUCH

#3) In the US ports, we search about 10% of the containers that arrive in the US, so that leaves a 9 out of   10 that could contain imported weapons that could harm US citizens. I think we would be better served if we beefed up the security by making it manditory to have part of your reserve training be to work at the ports to develop better security. 

#4) Bush has a hard enough time mastering the english language never mind making his own decisions. This 
decision made behind closed doors not communicating the intent to the states affected by the decision tells me that this is a payback for some deeds that were done along time ago. I don't buy it that an english company just makes it's mind up to someday to sell a profitable business just to sell it. This deal smells and WE pay for it in the end. GWB could care less about making friends in other countries, he has made that clear by starting a premptive war with a country and continues to compromise the entire country for his buddies. What ever happened to Colon Powell? Why can't the GOP get him back to run for President and set this country straight. He bailed when he had to lie for the good of the party and was so taken by it that he resigned in frustration. We need a leader to lead this country, not destroy it.


#5) You finally agree that there is something that smells fishy in this deal and you need more information. This is the first time I have seen this from you. Is it because both parties Dem's and Repub's cannot understand how he could make this kind of decision in light of somewhat current events like 9/11. So why would GW make the decision to NOT let a Chinese company buy a small oil company but would allow a known country that supports terrorism have access to the entire east coast of the United States. Is it because the UAE already has us by the short strings "OIL".

Sorry Denys, there is no question that our leader is misleading. 

Your Friend,
Joe
-------------- Original message from Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]>: -------------- 


> First: Remember Wirt's rule; if you didn't serve in the military or work in 
> a weapons lab, you are not allowed to argue for protecting the USA. 
> 
> Second: Do a quick Google search on Dubai and spaceport. It was in the 
> news just a little bit ago. 
> 
> Third: What makes you say that are ports are badly protected now, I mean 
> besides The Daily Kaos? 
> 
> Fourth: What makes you think that W would willingly compromise the security 
> of the USA for his business partners? I thought we agreed that W was not 
> like Clinton. 
> 
> Finally, I agree that at first glance this is not a good idea, but since I 
> think the administration has done some research on this issue, I would like 
> to know more details. After all this forum is supposedly populated by smart 
> people and smart people usually want more information before reaching a 
> decision. 
> 
> I must say that since Jimmy Carter likes the idea it must be bad for the 
> country. So, wait and see. 
> 
> 
> Denys 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of J Dolliver 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:20 AM 
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: What will he do next? 
> 
> Yes, I did confuse UAE with Saudi, but the point I am making is that weather 
> it's UAE, Saudi, Oman, Iran what ever, it's not like buying a company that 
> makes cars. It's access to the united states in a large capacity. We do a 
> poor job of keeping these ports secure ourselves so why would you think it's 
> a good idea to give up our ports? 
> 
> -------------- Original message from "Heasman, David" 
> : -------------- 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing Saudi Arabia with the UAE? And the governments of both 
> these countries, both incredibly loyal US allies, with Al-Qaeda? 
> I mean, John Gotti was American, but we still let Ford buy Jaguar. 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 21 February 2006 14:56 
> To: Heasman, David; Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: What will he do next? 
> 
> 
> * Please Note : This message was received from the Internet * 
> _____________________________________________________________ 
> Am I missing something here? Let's see there were 4 planes that were driven 
> into buildings and the ground flown by 19 members of a rogue organization 
> and better than 1/2 of them were from UAE. The funding of such organizations 
> that sponsor terrorists mostly come from where? Let's not forget that there 
> was another attack on the WTC back in 1993 but failed to take the building 
> down. And who were they? 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> This message might contain confidential information. If it has been sent to 
> you in error please do not forward it or copy it or act upon its contents, 
> but report it to [log in to unmask] 
> 
> Schroders has the right lawfully to record, monitor and inspect messages 
> between its employees and any third party. Your messages shall be subject to 
> such lawful supervision as Schroders deems to be necessary in order to 
> protect its information, its interests and its reputation. 
> 
> Schroders prohibits and takes steps to prevent its information systems from 
> being used to view, store or forward offensive or discriminatory material. 
> If this message contains such material please report it to 
> [log in to unmask] 
> 
> Schroders does not normally accept or offer business instructions via email 
> unless prior agreements are in place. Any action that you might take upon 
> this message might be at your own risk. 
> 
> 
> Schroder Investment Management Limited 
> 31 Gresham Street 
> London EC2V 7QA 
> 
> Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Schroder 
> Investment Management Limited is entered on the FSA register under the 
> following register number: 119348 
> 
> Registered Office 
> 31 Gresham Street 
> London EC2V 7QA 
> 
> Registered number 1893220 
> VAT registration number 243 8687 30 
> 
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * 
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * 
> 
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * 
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *