Well said.
It reminds me of this old graphic by Registered:
Posted on 02/25/2006 3:00:55 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
February 24, 2006: The recent controversy over the acquisition of the British firm Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company in the United Arab Emirates, has been largely a matter of heat opposed to light. This is largely because of a number of myths that have quickly circulated throughout the blogosphere. These myths have led to a lot of controversy that has cast one of the strongest American allies in the Persian Gulf in a poor light that is undeserved.
First, a look at the United Arab Emirates is in order. This is a country that has been a long-standing ally of the United States since 1971. The UAE was part of the coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and also has supported the United States in the war on terror (including, among other things, providing access to a deep-water berth that can accommodate aircraft carriers, use of a training facility for air-to-air training facility, airfields, and logistics support). It is a country that has proven largely inhospitable to al-Qaeda (instead, the focus is on business), sent forces to Afghanistan to protect the construction of a hospital that they donated and built, and also has sent humanitarian assistance to Iraq while also providing a location for training Iraqi police. In 2002, the UAE also captured a major al-Qaeda figure, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and handed him over to the United States despite threats from the terrorist organization. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the UAE donated $100 million for the relief efforts. Both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace have described the relationship the United States has with United Arab Emirates as "very close" and "superb". It would be interesting to know what sort of information Michelle Malkin has that would override the judgment of Rumsfeld and Pace. Her characterization of the United Arab Emirates as "demonstrably unreliable" is not just factually challenged, it is slap in the face to the strongest ally the United States has in the Persian Gulf.
One of the other things that has been ignored in the anti-UAE diatribes from Malkin is the fact that the United Arab Emirates is a Middle Eastern country where religious tolerance is the rule. The UAE's constitution guarantees freedom of religion (albeit it declares Islam as the official religion), and largely permits religious freedom. In 2003, the UAE shut down the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which was publishing material that promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Second, nothing will really change at the ports, particularly with regards to security. Security will remain the province of the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. In another fact ignored by the scare campaign, the UAE has the only port in the Middle East that is part of the Container Security Initiative. Dubai Ports World has also agreed to mandatory participation in other programs to improve security and to prevent the illegal shipment of nuclear materials, and will also provide documents on internal operations on demand and has agreed to cooperate in future investigations. The deal was also scrutinized by the intelligence community, which found no problems. The only thing that changes hands is who owns the company that will handle the day-to-day operations (often performed by American longshoremen – usually unionized). Dubai Ports World also bought out the port operations of CSX in 2004 – with no real issues.
Third, several claims have been made regarding connections to 9/11, specifically the fact that two of the hijackers were from the UAE. First, none of the critics have any proof that either the government of the UAE or Dubai Ports World was involved in the attack. By the standard of these critics, the United Kingdom would be held responsible for Richard Reid, or Germany would be responsible for the Hamburg cell that planned the attack. Second, the United Arab Emirates have stepped up efforts to make money laundering less easy after Dubai was used as a financial conduit for the attacks (again, there is no proof that the UAE or DPW were active participants in the laundering). It should also be noted that at least two Americans have worked with al-Qaeda (Johnny Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla) as well.
The last thing to consider is that in the day and age of the Internet, this debate is not staying inside the United States. Past irresponsible comments (like those by Senator Richard Durbin concerning Guantanamo Bay) have spread across the world very quickly. The scurrilous comments directed at the United Arab Emirates by Michelle Malkin have the potential to assist al-Qaeda recruiting in that country, and thus do more damage than the port deal would have done.
people are mixing up three separate but interrelated issues here (and i don't mean you--i agree with you on this):
1. smearing our allies (a bad idea; but if the UAE refuses to let Jews enter, and if the UAE supported the talaban and supports hamas, this should be publicized);
2. free trade--a good idea
3. turning over our ports to the UAE: a bad idea, for security reasons.
free trade is not the same thing as weakening our security.
And Libya has given up it's WMD program. Countries can change.
The UAE has shown that it is with the US on the WOT and South Korea, which shares a border with a country run by a madman, seems to have no problem with DPWorld.
Dubai Ports World set to manage new Busan port in South Korea.
Well said.
It reminds me of this old graphic by Registered:
How many times must you be told we are NOT doing that?
With all due respect, I think labelling people who have concerns about this deal as "frightened" diminishes them and belittes their argument. Many people who don't applaud this deal are rational people who care about their country.
The world has moved on and grown up.
Perhaps you should, too.
A list and pictures of Catholic churches in the UAE
LOL........don't tell me that; my niece just moved there!
exactly!
Great, great post!
I am frankly surprised when Hillary stands up and speaks out against this deal. Talk about balls.
i completely agree with you.
it's interesting that bush always points out that we are at war when he is pushing for something he wants, but on the ports deal, bush seems to ignore the fact that we are at war.
the bush admin. is making the same mistake as the clinton admin.: they seem to think that free trade (generally a good thing) requires giving up our security.
It certainly sounds like things have changed since I was there but I guess I'm one of those old farts who comes from the "Remember Pearl Harbor" school. My uncle was there and when I was young I remember how much he hated the Japanese and he would never forgive them. When I joined the service I thought they had changed. They hadn't. I think it was around 1985 or 1986 and President Reagan was in Tokyo for a G-8 meeting. At that time our economy wasn't so good and Japan was flying high. While our President was still inside the meeting a Japanese Minister, I can't remember which, came out and remarked to the gathered newspaper reporters that American servicemen in Japan were so poor because of inflation that they could only afford to 'stay on base and give each other AIDS.' I sold my only Japanese car the next week and swore I'd never buy another one. The WTC and 911 are my Pearl Harbor. It ain't logical but its the way I will always feel. Someone on here accused me of assigning guilt by association with regards to the U.A.E. I guess they're right. After all, their share of the blood pool for 911 is only about 315 souls.
i think letting the chinese government run our ports is even a worse idea than letting the uae run them.
the whole concept of foreign governments (chinese or uae)runnning our infrastructure is really bad.
What kind of chauvanistic bs are you peddling? You obviously have some kind of nationalistic agenda. You want to take the oil money out of Texas, too? And who is running this lottery, anyway. You are talking nonsense. If you compare the Saudi capitalists to their nomadic ancestors who carried their wealth on camelback, then you would see the difference. Or, you could compare them to environmentalists who do not like oil, and fight drilling as the ones in Forida who prefer clean beaches. No oil money here, even though there is oil.
What the hell are you talking about? Make it affordable? Maybe some reparations would do the trick?
This is the second time I've felt that way; I thought the Miers things was an out and out witch hunt. And the Cheney thing and the NSA thing just tipped me over the top.
I'm to the point where I hate "ours" as much as I hate "theirs."
I'm down to listening to Hume and Barone.
"What the hell are you talking about?"
I'm assuming that you read the rest of my comment or did it fill up the very limited ammount of space in your tiny brain? And here I was thinking lower taxes were a conservative ideal.
Resulting to bottom of the barrel personal insults really makes you look like a person who should be paid attention to.
You're the one who could only handle half of my argument. Are you afraid that someone would agree that making it easier for American companies is a good idea?
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.