Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
*SNIP*
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
*SNIP*
This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
???? WHAT are "both articles that will be printed today?" You're carrying on at least 50% of this conversation within your own head, said confines to which I (sadly) am not privy. Flesh it out, please.
You at least do realize by this point, of course, that you ARE debating Krauthammer on a position he neither advances nor holds... yes? :)
Why are you being so ugly? Nice cherry picking on your part. Charles admits readily that there could be problems:
On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terrorism, has any such record. (That paragraph is considered showing the good AND the dangerous aspects of the deal).
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types. (That paragraph shows the danger of the deal)
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
There's more, but you get the point. Now I suggest you stop making yourself seem silly. My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that Saudi Arabia already manages some of our terminals.
I'll wait while you tell how it is you have come to the 100% wrong conclusion that I'm in the grip of some intellectual hysteria. Read my posts in the forum. I'll wait. And then expect an apology.
you make me wonder why i defended the seahawks so strongly after losing the super bowl. go bears
I have plenty of respect for Franks and North.
I also think our idea that Islamic fascists will quit being fascists if we keep feeding them money is a little bizarre. We've been doing that for decades.
Don't think this is so much a NS problem as one of appeasing a nation that we really don't need to appease. We obviously need to keep a presence in UAE as a launch-point into Iran, and to keep the Straight of Hormuz open. I don't see how UAE could possibly ask us to close our base, given their place in the region.
Did you visit the links?
UAE and Somali companies, mostly. Is it because UAE is helping us to root them out, or is it because we busted them on our own? If they are helping us root the terrorists out, is it because they have a genuine desire to do so as a country? Or is it just for the protection and money while privately wishing us dead? I feel that's a pretty valid question given the topic. If you have some information, or views to share, I would appreciate it.
Have any of our other allies in that area really stood with us in any meaningful way other than letting us operate bases, and turning over a few of the worst offenders in exchange for keeping them out of hot water?
Turkey wouldn't even let us operate off of their soil when we went in to Iraq. I agree that we have and need military bases in that part of the world. Are these folks really our friends, though?
Considering that we trust Dubai and DP World to manage the port most critical to the logistic support of our troops in the War on Terror, and that we trust them to a greater amount of support for our surface combat vessels then any other nation, I'd say that the conclusions of General Franks and Colonel North are based on sound principle, not hysterics.
No, muffin: "ugly" would be to accuse you either of intellectual inadequacy (in not being swift enough to grasp what is plainly written), or else lying outright (in intentionally misrepresenting same).
Granting the possibility that you may simply be in hysterics, on the other hand, spares you from being tarred as either a mope or a fraud. You're entirely welcome, of course.
Charles admits readily that there could be problems
As there very well might be, obviously. Obviously didn't change one jot or tittle of his final analysis, however, did it? Hmmmmmmmmm...?
My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that
Your original "point," such as it is, is bucktoothed. He already does know, as the article has long since rendered concrete.
Read my posts in the forum.
You'll be waiting a good, long-ish while before stumbling across anyone caring less about your other postings hereabout than I, kiddo... and: they're wildly irrelevant, in any case. It's within this thread that you've plainly decided to have your little tantrum, after all.
I'll wait. And then expect an apology.
Make certain to move your legs, every few hours. It'll help prevent cobwebs.
Hey Dip wad;
I did read the article. I based my comments on the last two paragraphs.
Make another post about something you know about. Not about something I did read.
[::shrugs::] I sleep soundly tonight whether you're coherent or not, either way.
Can't be bothered to read my posts to see how intellectual dishonest you are that I'm hardly in the grip of hysteria? Good to know what kind of poster you are. Not wanting to be bothered with the facts is usually a Democrat tactic.
Then what you posted was (charitably) babble.
Dude you're a liberal, you have to be.
Your previous postings are not at issue, here. Your postings within this thread, on the other hand, are.
Stomp your hoof twice if any of this is finally sinking in for you.
BTW welcome to FR, I hope the Cowboy in our name isn't a reference to bareback mountin' or the "rough riders" comment in your tag line..
Intellectual hysteria is a term used by an emasculated male who can't make a point to a woman without being demeaning.
Sorry... but: I never take that swaybacked, last ditch defense of the truly desperate seriously... especially from those tenures here are less lengthy than my own.
Stomp your hoof twice? Very classy even for Seattle.
now your talking about tenure, you sound like a liberal professor. You cant fire me I have tenure! :)
Oh, I'd cheerfully be every last bit as "demeaning" towards you -- or (more accurately) the pale, whisper-thin things you doubtless like to think of as your arguments -- regardless of your putative gender, believe me.
Speaking of liberal traits: desperately attempting to play the Poor, Put-Upon Ingenue card is the very hoariest of same.
But you already knew that, of course.
One plays the cards one is dealt. :)
One also posts a thread that was posted and commented on last night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.