Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: massgopguy

I'm not happy about the deal. Just like I wasn't happy about the Japanese buying Rockefeller Center in 1985. I would have been even less happy had they done so in 1950 and I'm sure the outrage would have been similar since it would have been only nine years since the attack on Pearl Harbor. But in 1950 Japan became an important ally in the Cold War as a staging area for the Korean War.



Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point) and False Cause arguments to name two logical fallacies in your post:

First, Rockefeller Center (RC) is real estate that is not a part of the WOT. It is not a part of our borders or Ports Authority. Why didn't you just use the World Trade Towers as an example?

Second, RC was bought by a Japanese company that was not an arm of the Japanese government. The Japanese company owned the property but could not alter global shipping manifests or bills of lading. The Japanese company was not notorious for illegal drug trade and money laundering as the UAE and its government company DPW are known to be according to our own CIA and State Dept.

Third, The Japanese in 1950 or 1985 never supported or financed terrorist groups such as Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, or recognize the Taliban up to the day the fell. Moreover, the Japanese never sought the destruction of Israel, our close ally and friend.

Forth, owning RC would not automatically boycott Israel.

Fifth, the comparison to 1950 is misleading. We destroyed Japan's capacity to fight any war and we occupied her territory militarily in 1950. If the UAE was totally under our military jusidiction such as Iraq I would have granted you a partial credit in this one section of argument.

Sixth, Japan was a staging area for the Korean Conflict in the Cold War (some call WWIII) because we occupied her after WWII (which was punishment for her evils). What the UAE deal is akin to is Soviet Russia controlling our port terminals in the Cold War, or the Japanese controlling our important terminals during WWII.

Finally, the truth leaking out that the Saudis, Singapore, and others control some our terminals does not sweep away the argument (An ergo logical fallacy). In point of fact, it shocks us that such things are true in a post 9-11 world. It also worsens the situation as a security and PR nightmare. And make no mistake, Bush's adament position on this deal above CFR, bloated budgets, permanent tax cuts, etc. is horrible PR that is destroying the base. His arrogance in the face of any contrary facts and opinion is enraging. His attacks on conservatives is divisive.


58 posted on 03/03/2006 9:00:01 AM PST by sully777 (wWBBD: What would Brian Boitano do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: sully777

I'll write it bluntly. Bush's comfort zone is neoliberalism. Sure he's got a few social conservative points. But he ain't no crunchy con or even anything near it.


75 posted on 03/03/2006 10:14:40 AM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson