Outside U.S., Puzzlement Over Reaction to the Dubai Port Deal

NY Times ^ | February 25, 2006 | Heather Timmons

[Smokin' Joe]

I'd rather have Dubai own our ports than Beijing

And Beijing is running a bunch of terminals here in the US, and at both ends of the Panama Canal.

[William Terrell]

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS DEAL. It's just going to make our friends distrust us, and the image of the stupid, racist American grows. God help us.

A couple of things occurred to me.

First, The Islamics haven't made any secret of their intention to make Earth an Islamic world. The nature of the religion and its holy writings advocate deadly violence to achieve that end.

They're working the politics, now, here, and in Canada. Europe seems to be in a more advanced state of interaction with Muslims.

The pressure of Islamic culture on countries whose people have nothing in common with it is currently taking place. I see it can:

1. Increase
2. Decrease but not stop
3. Stay the same
4. Stop

I have a hard time believing that it will 2, 3 or 4. I'll bet number 1. Increase means more intense interactions with Islamics and non-Islamics, the way the Islamics are behaving, and misbehaving.

Second, I'm asked to believe that the UAE, in any kind of pressure situation, will ally with powerful infidels against their own people.

[Smokin' Joe]

The secrecy involving the deal in the first place,..

It was not a secret!

It just was not considered news. Like so many other mergers or acquisitions which barely make the financial page, and are only found lurking in the trade magazines your library will probably never get.

Not news that is, until the MSM misrepresented a multinational corporate deal between two global shipping firms, anyway, as somehow selling our ports and our national security.

Of course, with the Dems trying to morph into the party of "National Security", they presented this as some secret deal done behind the scenes to sell us all down the river.

Why? So the likes of Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton could present themselves as the saviours of the entire nation vs the EEEEEVIL BUSH, whose fault it was that they had to save us in the first place.

Amazing that the Pubbies in CONgress fell all over themselves to follow Chuckie and HILLARY's lead! WITHOUT FINDING OUT THE FACTS!

There are 535 people on the hill who can get face time just about any time they want to throw out a press release, and they are not doing it. THEY do not, by and large know what is going on, either, and have knee jerked to the Dems lead, instead of making an informed rebuttal to the Dems allegations. Just where the Hell were they? The president is only one part of the equation, where was his backup?

It disgusts me.

And numerous SUCKERS on this forum and elsewhere, and right up to the US Capitol bought in, launched knee-jerk tirades that are still echoing in the wings without finding out diddley sh!t about it, and propelled all but the most intelligent or staunch of those cowflops balanced on barbed wire we call a Congress to sway with the wind and make collective asses of themselves, embarass and insult a serious ally, and possibly every muslim on the planet.

What galls me is that the media, the same media which would have us all looking outside to check if they reported the sky as blue, led so many right down the primrose path to assinity.

Point to the opposition. I gotta give the a$$holes credit for orchestrating and choreograping this very well.

[nopardons]

And HOW does one buy a country ?

[nopardons]

BRAVO !

[Bikers4Bush]

I consider no muslim an ally. Their very religion preaches deceipt to all non-mulsims.

They cannot be trusted, any of them.

[Smokin' Joe]

Well then, we'd better start killing them all, every man, woman, and child, because there are only going to be more later.</sarc>

[Bikers4Bush]

Killing them is a little extreme, we just need to isolate them in their own little part of the world and let them kill each other as they often do.

[MEGoody]

UAE is one of the good guys.

Well. . .that depends on how you define 'good guys'. They've done some very radical Islamic things, e.g. boycotting Israel. That's not to say I think we have any business telling a British company who they can sell a part of their business to. It just means I'd call the UAE an 'ally' that we need to keep our eyes on.

[Smokin' Joe]

They are everywhere, in case you had not noticed. Either we figure out an acceptable way to get along aith the 1.4 billion of them, or we had better start stockpiling ammo.

If we can't trust them, not any, then we had better do the latter. If we can, it behooves us to sort out the ones we can trust and follow that lip with actions commensurate with that trust. Otherwise we are the ones being deceitful.

[DOGEY]

You can't participate in international trade unless your port operations are foreign-owned?

You cannot expect to participate in international trade and exclude foreign companies. This should be self-evident. Since the U.S. benefits far more than most countries in this area, we are defecating upon ourselves.

[Bikers4Bush]

Out of the 1.4 billion we could probably trust 1/10th of 1% or 1.4 million. I'm not inclined to try to figure out which are which.

We need to follow Australia's example and tell the one's that would push for sharia law and islamic dominance to get the hell out of the U.S. If they don't leave we identify them and throw them out, and no I don't care if they are "U.S. citizens" at that point, by aligning themselves with islamic dominance they will have forfeited their citizenship in my opinion.

Anything else is a waste of time.

[Wolfie]

Remember the days when America could operate without being told what to do?

Nope. I'm too young.

[andyk]

You cannot expect to participate in international trade and exclude foreign companies. This should be self-evident.

Of course it is, but that's not what I was asking. I'll say it again: the article implies that you can't participate in international trade unless your port operations are foreign-owned. That's just plain insulting.

[DOGEY]

Exactly where does the article imply that fact?

Most participants in the cargo area are non-American firms. American firms dominate other areas of international commerce. The only thing insulting here is the reaction by the Congressional yahoos trying to work the public up in an election year over an issue that is commercial, not a security matter.

[andyk]

Exactly where does the article imply that fact?

It's simple enough to figure that out. I only have so many posts on this thread...Besides, I said it was an implication. One doesn't imply facts. I have a disagreement with the way something was worded in the article. I was clear about it, and asked a question about the implication I felt it was trying to make. You obviously don't see it the same way - big deal.

Most participants in the cargo area are non-American firms. American firms dominate other areas of international commerce.

Um, good for you?