Posted on 02/25/2006 5:15:41 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
It wasn't personal. You used the term "ugly Americans" without any specifics thereby generalizing. Or, did you mean to call those of us who are opposed to this adiministration's call to support this deal "ugly Americans"?
In either case, I thought it was nice to know that someone had the guts to say what he's really thinking: That anyone who wants to protect America both economically and literally is, in your eyes, an "ugly American".
I must respectfully disagree.
Make your enemy your friend. We need Muslims to defeat the Jihadists...that's why we're in Iraq.
This is strategic thinking. I trust President Bush on the war on terror.
check out my post #123
Well...I think there maybe elements within the UAE that maybe sympathetic to Jihad. But, I don't think that I'd be wrong if I said that there are elements within our own government that are similarly sympathetic...Durbin comes to mind, along with other congressmen who have lost their jobs since espousing anti American views. Unfortunately, not enough of them have lost their jobs.
This high praise is not to say that I am entirely sympathetic with every word you wrote. It looks (I just read it once) like journalism with attitude, which is okay, if the attitude is all out front rather than hidden in distortions undetectable to the reader, which I am assuming is not the case.
I did notice you bashing someone for xenophobia. (I always get a little paranoid when they take after the xeonphobes...not that eventually they will come for me but that they are coming for me NOW ;-)
Enough...time to read the responses...
I would not argue with you on that point.
Ooooops...I realize now that the reportage is from a Mark Finklestein. Thanks, anyway, Governsleast, for posting it, which is also a service.
First of all, on the Arabs thing, I fully understand how to distinguish between "Arabs" and "muslims." But that doesn't alter the fact that the "Arabs" in question are in fact muslim, counter that as you may. The question was largely rhetorical with the point being that there are other Arab nations that we don't call the denizens of "Arab", rather Saudis, or Iraqis, or Kuwaitis, etc. Hamas are Arabs too. So are Al Qaedans.
You make a serious mistake by lumping all into the bad guy pile.
No, I don't, and have expressed exactly that numerous times. But since apparently you know, please, tell us how to distinguish, on the surface, between a muslim that "smiles at you and is sincere" and one that "smiles at you yet has intentions of slashing your throat" as it were, or otherwise undermining the security of the nation or your community? I'm very curious how you can tell the difference.
I.e., the mistake is yours. You assume that b/c not all are bad, the "bad" ones will ever be a factor. Good thing you're not running national security. .... Or are you?
No, not all muslims are "bad," but just about all terrorists are muslim. Most of the rest don't do jack to stop the "bad" ones. Intentionally so? The question is rhetorical only.
Likewise, would you be able to tell the difference between an "Arab" worker with sympathies towards muslim sponsored terrorism and one that is purely interested in living a good life and making a living for his family? Again, if you're already there, I'm sure the State Department would offer you quite a bit of money to be able to do so from a purely outward perspective.
Yes two did come from the UAE. By this logic we must condemn all American blacks because two blacks terrorized Virginia and Maryland with a sniper rifle. But I digress.
Yes, you do digress and that is very, very weak.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/alexiev200602241620.asp
I see no real relation between the problem of Mexican illegal immigration and the flap over ports.
Once again, you're missing the point. I made no direct link between the two. The former is clearly an incredible issue of national security however contrary to your assessment, and yet the President has done virtually nothing to correct that problem and frankly, hasn't even admitted formally that it even is a problem. My point, since you missed it, is that with such lack of credibility from that perspective, he certainly does not nor should not get a free pass here. Both are tremendous and ongoing problematic issues involving national security.
Forget what was and concentrate on what can be..... that is W's course.
W's course in this way regarding national security also seems to be one of "sticking his head in the sand" and hoping that nothing happens on his watch" regarding domestic national security. A good many people across the Fruited Plain agree with that. Just ask people along the border states!
As to your "job description," that's still far more than vague enough to allow for some serious concerns. Not only that, but I see some great potential for issues within what you did mention, much of which is common sense, especially to anyone with even a remote logistics background.
One last parting question; have you ever read the Koran? Even just the first ten chapters? If so, does anything odd strike you about its content? Also if so, why would any muslim not believe/trust/obey what's in the Koran?
If not, I would strongly urge you to read it. It has a tremendous bearing on relations between those that call themselves muslims and the rest of the non-muslim world. It's not my book, I didn't write it. Nor do I give it any credibility in that way. To do so would necessarily entail my insisting that the Living Judeo-Christian God is not real. But there are plenty of people, muslims clearly, that do believe and practice either actively or passively, what the Koran says. That has a tremendous bearing on my opinions on this matter.
Again, thanks for engaging on this!!! : )
Thank you Eric. If I were younger and healthier, I'd volunteer again; but, I'm afraid I'd just be in the way in my current condition.
Defending America is the most important thing. America is truly the last great hope for a democratic world.
I remember seeing a story on Dubai and UAE many years ago on 60 Minuets (well before I stopped watching them). It was about how wealthy the citizens all were from oil money.
I think money changes everything. If the government of UAE is ideological, I believe they are ideological about money...not about going back to the stone age with jihad on their lips.
While I trust that you believe that, you don't know. What I do know is that the odds of the British and their companies falling on our side is likely much greater to the tune of all but assured.
Again, we said the same thing about the Saudis only 20 years ago, yet look at all the issues with them, even government sponsored, fostering terrorism and unrest (Wahhabism) around the world in and in our own nation. Do we not learn anything from history?
As to the "money side of things," believe me, if push came to shove and the Chinese were offering them more, I agree, they'd go with the money! My point is reinforced.
The bottom line here is that there is no sane and objective person in the world that can assure us that letting say a British or Swedish based company run things, even if it isn't nearly as lucrative, wouldn't have fewer inherent risks associated with it.
I also find it interesting that a spendthrift government is all of a sudden concerned with financial and economic efficiency and accountability. That's a real hoot!
Thanks. But that's also a big part of this picture.
Make your enemy your friend. We need Muslims to defeat the Jihadists...that's why we're in Iraq.
This is strategic thinking. I trust President Bush on the war on terror.
Yeah, well I and many other Americans trusted him on border security too and he has yet to even formally admit that it's an issue. So credibility rests on our side there.
"Making your enemy your friend" doesn't necessarily entail sending them to a "weekend in Vegas with your wife!"
They are and have been our friends so I'm told. Yet...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/alexiev200602241620.asp
Friends, eh?
Again, the facts stand up against you.
That's right we are all equal in the world. No one nation is better, smarter, stronger, etc. We should all be one big schoolyard where they don't keep score lest the other kids have their self-esteem ruined.
Now who sounds like the liberal?
I don't want Durbin and the Dims in charge of our ports let alone any other part of our government either. But they're here and a part of our system. Why we're ushering in others with the potential to be far worse threats, is beyond me.
And again, this is highly dependent upon the degree of influence and ability to pass along critical information that they'd have. I see no reason to not look into this for a month or two. Or more if necessary. Yet, the Pros, just like good libs, won't even have any discussion on the issue, many of them that is. What's the hurry?
First published in 1958, The Ugly American became a runaway national bestseller for its slashing exposé of American arrogance, incompetence, and corruption in Southeast Asia..
I would never use personal insults against any of our true blue FReeper FRiends.
;-)
AMEN!
BTW, Where did you learn your superhuman typing speed?
I can't read as fast as you type :-)
Well said Bert. I think some on this post wish to ascertain that all things have a zero rate for terrorist actions and this will never happen in our lifetimes.
I might add this has never been possible and never will be. This is a real, not a political war, and we all do the best we can to minimize death and destruction but complete isolation is not the answer.
I could not agree more but think isolationism is not the answer.
It is not feasible to crawl into a shell, post our armies on every border and blow hell out of anyone trying to enter who just look suspicious.
Yes, I know you are not saying this, but some on this thread seem to be promoters of this 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.