Administration: UAE 'has changed'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 24 February 2006 | Les Kinsolving

[Aussie Dasher]

The White House has never heard of the Trojan Horse?

Moozies is moozies!

[CWOJackson]

This is the same firm that has major operations in an Australian port. The same firm that England is preparing to sell some of their own leases to. The same firm that is the major port provider for the U.S. Navy outside of the United States.

[Sam the Sham]

Pakistan also recognized the Taliban. They, too, are now a critical ally in the war on terror,...

When Bush visits Pakistan all hell is going to break loose. Three quarters of that country would give its life to kill George Bush. As perhaps would most Dubaians.

[mathprof]

[DoughtyOne]

This is the same nation that our State Department issues travel advisories for. Beware of terrorism in the UAE, but darn it, they sure are great port operators.

I don't think the UAE leadership is bad, but it's possible. I do know that some of the UAE populace is very bad. That's the rub. We let our guard down for five years and just when we don't care if folks are leaning to take off but not land 'figurateively', kaboom!

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

But you're forgetting....DP World won't be responsible for security. Therefore, they won't know any details of what goes on or how to thwart it. Just like bank employees don't know what security measures operate in a band and so therefore we never hear of bank robberies having an inside man who supplied the information about security systems. Just like retail store employees don't know the location of every camera in their store. Just like....well, you get the picture. Following this logic we therefore shouldn't be upset if a convicted pedophile goes to work at the local middle school because, after all, he wouldn't actually be teaching the children.

Speaking of child molesters, do you think perhaps this deal is a quid pro quo to the UAE in exchange for them taking Michael Jackson off of our hands? Either that or it's a brilliant Rovian strategy....the President will make the claim that the reason he needs to exercise his executive authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps is to ensure security at these six ports and the Democrats and Arlen Specter will be forced to concede his Article 2 powers.

[Dark Skies]

IMO, our Prez never got it because he only saw the symptoms...and he treated them as best he could. However, the enemy is burrowed deeply into islam...and the Prez isn't even focused on that. Are all muslims bad...of course not. But is the core of islam evil...d@amned right it is.

Missing that fact is deadly. When the leader of a nation misses it...it might be deadly for a nation...in this case, it might be deadly for the world!

There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.

[DoughtyOne]

LOok, iF yoU're nOt goINg to poSt factS, thEn doN't pOst On thIs topIc...

LOL

You know what, simple reasoning tells anyone but those with simpler minds all they need to know about this.

We used to limit access to citizens of nations like the USSR, because we were adversaries. Now we just kiss up to them and help finance their military buildup. Now that's progress...

Thanks for the post.

[RightWhale]

UAE is changed all right. They are twice as rich as last year.

[CWOJackson]

Actually that is a good analogy. Even at the height of the cold war Soviet merchant ships came to U.S. ports every day. The same U.S. Coast Guard that maintained security on them maintains security on all port operations.

[Rokke]

"We used to limit access to citizens of nations like the USSR, because we were adversaries. Now we just kiss up to them and help finance their military buildup. Now that's progress... "

Are you really this simple minded? First of all, if you will recall the USSR didn't exactly allow its citizens to freely leave the Soviet Union whether we wanted them here or not. Second, the Soviet Union and its government had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at our cities, its military was designed for our destruction, and it lead a pact of nations whose stated purpose was to crush our NATO alliance. Sounds a lot like the UAE...or maybe not. Get a grip.

[Windsong]

Was about to give this a serious read when I saw the source. Farah has always been out to lunch. Idiots.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes it would be, if only it were addressing the ports excluslively. Saudi Arabia has announced they are upping their student contingent to the U.S. to 20,000. I disagree with the port plan, but this comment wasn't intended to address that alone.

[CWOJackson]

The Saudis? You do know they already own a commercial port venture in the U.S. don't you?

[Fred Nerks]

There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.

---

No, I don't think so. We are planning to LIVE with these people, show them a way forward and how can we do that if we thwart them from taking part in the world economy?

Hey, can you imagine telling Wall Street they must not under any circumstances sell shares to a muslim? Or real estate agents, give them strict instructions that no Saudi is to be allowed to own a property in Manhatten? Hmmmm?

Where does it stop and where does it start? Aussie ports operated by P & O are apparently also part of the deal...and I've not heard a peep out of the Opposition party. Why would that be?

[DoughtyOne]

Perhaps you're not old enough to know this, or you simply never cared enough to find out, we kept tabs on every Soviet citizen on our soil.  We limited entry and told each of them where they could or couldn't travel to.  Yes it is true, that each were sent by the government.  That means they were certainly a possible threat.  With 60% of the Saudi populace members of the Wahabi sect, many of them are a direct threats also.  The problem is, we allow the Saudi government to send these people over on student visas, with no restrictions.  We do a cursory check on entry, and they fade into the woodwork.

Yep, there's certainly no multiple-nation aspect to this present threat is there?  Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, the Sudan, Lybia...  shall I go on?  Look, governments are not necessarily driving this in most instances.  This is a religious driven conflict of radicals.  Those radicals stretch from north-eastern Africa to Malaysia.  Many of those governments are rather friendly with us.  That doesn't mean that many of their citizens don't hate our gutts and wish us harm.

IMO, we are extremely ill advised to allow as much immigration as we do from these nations.  I wish it weren't so, but it's just silly to act as if this isn't true.

[Sam the Sham]

Oh don't be ridiculous !

The Arabs are sitting on top of the richest cash cow on this planet so we can hardly 'thwart them from taking part in the world economy'. If money would solve their problems they would have no problems.

You foolishly assume economic rationality as a motive of theirs. Religious fanatics don't give a damn about money. You can't buy them off.

[DoughtyOne]

No I didn't. Wonderful.

[CWOJackson]

They been at it several years now.

[Fred Nerks]

Fair comment. But money was made to go around. What ARE they expected to invest in? In Australia the UAE own bloodstock and equestrian properties.

This argument is going to go around in circles. One side based on emotion (not surprisingly) the other more pragmatic. Let's not come top blows over it!

IMMIGRATION IS A FAR GREATER PROBLEM! (imo)