Bush Says Ports Deal Will Stand

yahoo ^ | 2-22-06

[stuartcr]

The missile launchers that surround the port in Abu Dhabi, can easily reach Iran.

[MineralMan]

A potrzebie is either something you need very badly, or a font. Take your pick:

[zeebee]

except that the Strait of Hormuz is controlled by Oman, opposite Iran

But Iran through an act of war, could close it off, no?

[AntiGuv]

The missile launchers that surround the port in Abu Dhabi, can easily reach Iran.

The missile launchers on our aircraft carriers can reach Iran even more easily.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, Iran could try to close off the Strait of Hormuz (and almost certainly would try if American & Iran were at war) but either way the UAE would be of little consequence.

[Junior_G]

The Bush spin machine took a few moments to get up to speed, but all the arguments are in place now for why we shouldn't care about turning the ports over to the UAE.

[stuartcr]

True, but I doubt we would want to put carriers in the gulf, if we are at war.....better to have the retaliation hit foreign soil.

[Earthdweller]

Most of this thread sounds like a bunch of whiny scared babies instead of ground men using their heads.

You don't win a war by kicking your allies in the nuts.

[bcsco]

I'm replying to your post #119 to me.

I have difficulty seeing Mexico as the 'next' war when it seems intrinsically tied to our current WOT, what with our porous borders and the inevitability of terrorists infiltrating our country. However, by the 'next war' I'm guessing you refer either to the escalating war on the drug cartels or the increasing potential of Mexico destabilizing and the massive immigration problems that would entail. I'd appreciate more information on those thoughts.

I agree that much of what we're having to deal with today is the result of the fall of Communism in Russia, and shortsighted policies in the Middle-East. BTW, when you include presidents who have not served us with vision, don't forget to include Carter.

In any event this has been the most enjoyable thread I've engaged in for some time, and I believe you are to be thanked for that. It's refreshing to read some thoughtful comments instead of the everyday 'shoot-from-the-hip' commentary one often sees.

Please get back to me on the 'next war' issue. I'd really like that clarified.

[arthurus]

By next war I am thinking about the growing political drug empire in Latin America. The Cartels are or will be the governments down there and we will have to deal with them, too. Part of that is the problems of the gangs becoming an insurgency in the SW and in the big cities all over. These things we can't really deal with effectively while we are facing Islam until the states realize they are hurting and become willing to shoulder the load themselves. Right now there is only the glimmering of awareness in a few states. Most states and localities are still in the Sanctuary and American rights for everybody in the world mode.

I don't see some of the actions of the past that contributed to the problems of the present as being miscalculations. They were necessary in the conflict then at hand. That one had to be won even if it set up a further conflict. The error was in not following up in Afghanistan and well, that was when Clinton took the helm.

[stuartcr]

If the cartels could become that powerful, and their source of income is illegal drugs, then the logical solution, to quickly put an end to them, is to make the drugs legal and they will have no income.

[grjr21]

Stop being logical .It's not appreciated

[bcsco]

"By next war I am thinking about the growing political drug empire in Latin America."

That's what I suspected as I stated in my response to your post #119. I suppose the problem I have with such a policy (to allow the states to take control over the border issue until the WOT is...let's say 'contained')...if it is indeed an administration policy, is that our border issue is a Federal problem, and if Bush wishes the states to take control of a Federal issue then he should have worked with the governors instead of leaving them come to such a conclusion on their own.

Your conclusions regarding the implosion of Communist Russia and the resultant problems with the Middle-East are not hard at all to understand, and on the mark in my estimation.

As is often the case, we look at things in the short term and give little attention to long term political affect. This is a general failing of humanity. That's where real leaders (what's that?) stand out.

Thanks for an enjoyable thread.

[FFIGHTER]

Once again politicos are speaking without the grasp of the facts, or any knowledge of shipping, port operations and port security. Most if not all of them have never been on a ship, never been involved with cargo and port operations, or have any idea how they are accomplished and who is responsible for the various operations, including security. But knowledge does not make good sound bytes.

[stuartcr]

Sorry...how's this


WE"RE ALL DOOOOMED!!!

[arthurus]

That is certainly a logical approach. Unfortunately it seems to be not in the cards.

[stuartcr]

Well, I did my part.

[arthurus]

I don't think that the border problem should be a state issue, just that the states can deploy more resources right now than the feds can and are more immediately obviously harmed by the flood. Also so long as the states and localities do not co-operate and actually oppose efforts then those efforts will require far too much resources that are needed for the immediate exigencies of the Islamic War and will have minimal results.

[arthurus]

Our alliance with Russia in WWII is of the same nature but with so far apparently more serious consequences. The wartime alliance was deemed necessary at the time and should have been made. The error was in not following up a la General Patton's desire to keep rolling east. Neither FDR nor Truman were up to that.

[blowfish]

I must admit the PR machine at the White House is in need of an overhaul.

To call that bumbling, arrogant collection of incompetents a 'machine' is an insult to machines everywhere.