Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
I do love that horrible argument about the British running the ports from Bush, or that equally crappy argument about longshoremen from Rush. Good God, what the hell is going through their minds?
WTF, Mike got the zot????
No, I don't think I misread it. You referred to "Arabs that don't favor terrorism," which in the context of the thread, would naturally refer to the UAE, being further alienated by the reaction of US citizens ("hysteria") to this sale.
My point is that while there may be individual Arabs who don't favor terrorism, there are few to no Arab governments that don't overtly or covertly support it -- for the sake of saving their own, mainly corrupt, skins.
From Victor David Hanson:
The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.
Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”
For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.
Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.
According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.
The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.
There's more, but I think that makes the point.
How, exactly, is this much different from SA's support of suicide bombers? Because the UAE has not suffered from "the terrorists THEY created?" My guess is that since the port of Dubai is so critical to the transport of military supplies, there is enough US presence there to keep the UAE from that sort of "suffering."
You seem to want to elevate this matter to some sort of abstract "policy" decision, based on the assumption that the UAE's investment will prevent them from "blowing up ports" that are a source of income. That's reducing the argument to a bit of absurdity. The fear of those who oppose this (except of course for Dems, whose concern are the unions), is not that Dubai will sabotage the ports, but that their kowtowing and support of terrorism will allow an "embarassing" accident to occur at one of those ports, not through governmental action, necessarily (and this is a government-owned company), but through the same sort of inaction -- "looking the other way" when it comes to the actions of terrorists -- that we see in every Arab government.
Let this government continue to "support" the WOT in their own country to the best of their two-faced ability, but keep them out of our strategically critical US ports.
Correction to my last post: the info on the UAE isn't from VDH, it's from Rachel Ehrenfeld and Paul E. Vallely in Frontpagemag.com.
Maybe because no American company wants it. We are talking about 8 billion dollars. No American company has had it before. I think people are panicking because it is an Arab company. We are at war with radical Islam, not all Arabs. As far as Jimmah, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates....
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials....
Bush's words on the subject:
“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly."
I think it's the administration that should explain why a Middle Eastern company/government is being held to a different, reduced, standard. Furthermore, if the UAE is such an ally, why stipulate that they "cooperate with future U.S. investigations" as a condition of the deal? Wouldn't it be assumed that an "ally" has and will be cooperating? Apparently not.
I agree with you I smell am money trail here...
It might be more than money.
Some have suggested this is a deal to set up groundwork to go after Iran. My concern is that if Iraq is such a mess that we can't use it as a base, and have to go to Dubai, then we have big problems.
Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
Open borders is very consistent with libertarianism and is the default stance for even the "small" l-ers.
That is nonsense. Look at any FR illegal immigration thread. The posters weakest on the topic tend to be Bush syncophants.
"Maybe because no American company wants it. We are talking about 8 billion dollars. No American company has had it before. I think people are panicking because it is an Arab company. We are at war with radical Islam, not all Arabs. As far as Jimmah, even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
But according to the pro-deal crowd, the only thing that will change is the profit-collector. The same longshoremen and American managers will be running things. So why would no American company be interested in the deal? Or a better question is, if this is all just profit collecting, why would no American company want the deal AND the UAE company still want it?
Nobody is panicking. We just want American ports run by Americans. Just like we want American airport security personnel to be Americans. Just like we want our national security to be OUR national security first, and our allies' sensibilities come second, no matter how close or effective they are at helping us in the War on Terror.
I've been looking at this trying to figure out which base is so vital. I even read Tommy Franks' statement on the UAE. We are pretty firmly esconced in Iraq now. Which base are you talking about, and why do we need it so much that we are trading insecurity here for security there?
I'm sure at some level they are trying to be fair and point out two things that have some impact (why the British and not the Emirs, the actual operations folks on the ground will change very little), but fundamentally they both miss the point: it shouldn't be foreigners that are running American ports, whether they are our allies or not. To my knowledge, we don't depend on the UAE to run our air traffic system in six airports. We don't have the UAE run our airport security in six airports. We don't have the UAE unloading baggage in six international airports. Why should the UAE be running our port operations--even a portion of them? And if we DO at any point have the equivalent of the UAE working in our airports, WHY? Wasn't the uproar over hiring foreign airport screeners enough to stop this !@#$@!?
What is interesting about this is that back 100 years ago (in spite of the smears in history books written by lefties) the GOP were perceived to be pushing the issue of real corporate responsibility. Now, to raise the notion of corporate responsibility in the face of the Davos Culture is considered heresy. How dare I demand that corporations act as good citizens regarding the WOT! Funny how on the issue of security, borders and patriotism, the corporate crowd balk, and yet ne'er a peep about stupid overkill enviro regs and so called affirmative action.
Rush has been talking about it for days. I don't know the name of it (but Rush mentioned it) - but according to Rush, it is vital to the WOT. Also .. I think Monsoor Ijaz might have mentioned it also.
Plus all our ships from the gulf go into the port at Dubai to restock, etc. This is a great benefit to us.
Sorry to bring this up a day late, but your response here reminds me of something John Adams is reputed to have said during debate of the Declaration of Independence (and if it isn't true it should be since it captures both the common sense and the volcanic nature of the man!) One delegate was objecting to a disparaging reference to Parliament, asserting that it was unwise to offend that august body, especially since they were claiming it had no authority over the colonies anyway. Adams response was "It's a war, damn it, we've got to offend somebody!"
Thank you for remembering the quote and making me feel very honored by the comparison, even if it was incidental. Do you have any idea where I might read more about that? It would be interesting to see more of that discussion, what record there is of it.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787 (Too bad Justices Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer didn't peruse this before writing Kelo v. New London!)
The rich, the well-born, and the able, acquire and influence among the people that will soon be too much for simple honesty and plain sense, in a house of representatives. The most illustrious of them must, therefore, be separated from the mass, and placed by themselves in a senate; this is, to all honest and useful intents, an ostracism.
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, 1787. (This should be engraved over the entrance of the Senate chambers.)
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770
I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate.
John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770 (probably as true today as it was then!)
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772
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.