Posted on 02/24/2006 10:18:56 PM PST by Reagan Man
Don't forget Patsy's protectionism in all of this. The Democrats are only on this bandwagon because the unions think it's a bad deal for them.
Then what is Patsy's problem?
I don't understand!
Poor pat must be very conflicted over this issue. He's never met an Arab he didn't like but his hatred of President Bush is off the charts.
Here it is again.
say what?
"Negotiating provisions of the port deal."
I heard in the news today that one important objection was that the deal called for records NOT to be kept in American but in the UAE. The report said that typically records are kept in the country with the port. Do you have any information/thoughts on this?
I would rather have all documents kept in the US for security concerns. As far as thoughts, it would appear that the deal was one sided in favor of the UAE. IT looks like we gave away the store in this deal for the sake of our "friendship" with the UAE.
If you never thought you'd live to see the day, you should be thinking more. Seriously.
If you think the job of the government is to panic over everything that is "potentially" dangerous, that would explain your reaction here.
I have employed hyperbole in my comments, but it isn't far off from what people are saying about this deal.
Port control has been a continuum of foreign operational takeover for literally decades, even up to this deal. While I'm certain there have been complaints about this, and I know people were rightly up in arms about a known adversary China having control of our ports last year, it wasn't until a friendly arab nation's port company offered to buy out the stockholders of another foreign company running our ports.
And when asked why people objected to one foreign company taking over for another, most respondents used a variation of the "well, we can't have arabs running our ports".
Your responses have been to say that because muslims flew planes into our buildings, we couldn't trust any of them. Well, if every muslim is to be not just suspected of terrorism, but treated as if they are a terrorist (I don't know how else to characterize banning them from making a purchase of a foreign company other than that we want to treat them as if they are already criminals), then it isn't far off to suggest we should simply deport them.
Because if having DP World be the board in charge of the board (P&O) which is in charge of the U.S. companies that own leases to operate our ports is simply too great a risk because DP World's directors are muslims and they can be replaced by arabs who run the UAE, how much more risky is it to allow muslims (who like rattlesnakes according to you are presumed to be dangerous) live, work, and threaten us every day?
Of course you won't say that, and you will deny thinking that. I don't think you really think that, but I don't know -- I just know that your comments about rattlesnakes and pit bulls would logically lead one to conclude that you believe we would be safer if no muslims were present in our country.
I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted what you said, in fact I would be happy to hear that you thought no such thing, and that your sole concern was to simply make sure that there are no security issues.
It just sounded to me like you PRESUMED there were security issues simply because muslims were involved.
Friendly "Arab" nation seems to intentionally omit the word "islamic" (dominated) nation. "Arab" is far too generic a term to properly address this national security debate, because millions of Arabs are Christians who are being oppressed by the majority muslims. In fact, the word "friendly" itself can be used only in the sense they are not beheading Americans and Westerners, but to create the notion that any islamic government are our real "friends" is the biggest and most damnable lie about this whole fiasco.
It takes a long, long time and a great many similarities and commonalities for nations to be "friends", as in being able to completely trust one another, help one another, stand by one another at all times, and fight for one another if necessary. There is no such history between the two nations beyond the recent UAE "cooperation" with the U.S. in the our wot. "Friends" also implies similar cultural, social, economic, government and religious ways, none of which the U.S. and the UAE have in common. So we temporarily "tolerate" each other and use each other; them for money, protection and military hardware, us for having a little help in the WOT.
To call this islamic sheikdom that gives its people no say whatsoever in government, who openly hates Israel, who supplied the 9/11 attackers with money and passports, and who are suspected of turning a blind eye to ships using their ports and waters to bring nuclear materials to Iran, the description of "friend" is obviously just a made up crock of b.s. in support of President Bush's stance. They are NOT our 'friends'.
The UK are our friends. Australia are our friends. Italy and Canada (and others) our our friends. They are countries that take the same general world view as America, and are not at odds with our form of government and our majority religious belief, Christianity. The world view of America and our real friends is that democracy is the answer to establishing world peace, national stability and economic prosperity. The world view of the UAE is that islam and mohammed's word is the way to govern the earth. SCREW THAT.
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.