Posted on 03/09/2006 10:42:42 AM PST by navysealdad
Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests
Not while the beheadings were on going, nor while the war ongoing, nor a mere 4 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor either. It was at least 20 years, and a bit more, a full generation.
A full generation after the war against the Islamist terrorists ends, then we can treat them the way we treated the Japanese in say, 1970. Until then, "Trust but Verify".
Re #476 -
"...Probably a major window into Iran has just closed."
...Or a major window OUT OF Iran.
Who knows for sure?
That may be his only option now. As a lame duck under attack from within as well as without I think he ought to go for it. But on the wetback situation I don't think he ever has or ever will be our friend. It's a shame and it's wierd because the borders issue is a WOT issue as much as it's an economic issue.
exactly. now, Rove has democrats cheering for Halliburton. GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DPW offered to buy out P&O ( a BRITISH company ) and they accepted that deal.
Halliburton nor any other American company, were looking to buy P&O.
Then we need to fight that as well.
Totally .. but doesn't mean they won't get blisters from patting themselves on the wallet.
A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a "destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP."
Well Senator Frist. How does it feel to be made to look like an Indian-giver, a promise breaker? Someone who can't be trusted to hold up their end of a deal?
Officially? What officially? Show me. Provide a link to an official UAE statement of their radical ideological opposition.
Ah, ok, so they're civilized enough for our Navy to use their ports, they're civilized enough for us to accept their money when buying aircraft from Boeing, they're civilized enough to win the contract to repair one of our Navys's ships, they're civilized enough to supply us with a strategic location in the Strait of Hormuz, they're civilized enough to give $100 million dollars in aid for victims of Katrina, they're civilized enough that the largest shipping concern out of Israel supports them, they're civilized enough to want to spend monies to automate port facility in New York and p.o. the union but they aren't civilized enough to engage in good old fashioned capitalism.
Sorry, what they just found out has nothing to do with their supposed hatred of Jews and everything to do with uneducated hysteria and looking out for the unions in NY.
You nailed it. As much as we laughed at ol' pointy ears, for this issue we needed someone like that to sit down down on Larry King Live or some mass media forum with charts & graphs and educate the public and the spineless Congress critters. Bush is utterly incapable of doing it (and shouldn't have to). Others should have done it for him.
"Now, Larry, here is the % of foreign owned terminals over time ... and here is the law Congress devised that resulted in the President not being able to have advance knowledge of the deal ... and here is how security is handled for all of the process steps in importing containers ... "
I can't blame him on immigration because he doesn't make law and certainly we know nothing has come to his desk on immigration because he's never vetoed a bill. Same thing applies for the CIFIUS Process. The administration was just following the rules set up by previous congresses. If anyone's to blame for putting him in the lame duck status it's us for electing these clowns for congress.
Actually, they seem to be testing out the "DPW divesting it's American interests is a sham" angle first.
Dang, now what are we going to have to talk about? Mmmm, I can't wait for the next phoney "scandal" the media/Libs serve up.
bttt
I'm surprised to see you spew this stuff. How did we treat the Japanese in 1948? Strike that question. It gives too much credibility to your premise. How many westerners have been beheaded in the UAE? How many IEDs have been made and set off by people from the UAE?
Yeah, but 2000 was pre 9/11. We trained Iranians back in the '70's, and did business with Arab nations up until the embassy was taken over under Cahtool's presidency. Clinton was no better. These folks hate us. I mean hardline Muslims, not the traitors we elected. Not only did we train pilots, we sold them the planes.
Before my mom got really sick, I got an earful about the Trilateral Commision. She was on that stuff, and damn if she wasn't right(we used to "humor her"-we didn't quite believe that it could get that treacherous)!
I don't want to be considered a xenophobe, or a racist, but I would hope that I have enough common sense not to let the cat into the mouse room.
I like the BBQ grade of foil, cause it makes better hats ;-)
"So you're suggesting that we're better off if the UAE takes it's billions of dollars and invests it in China instead? WOuld you rather have them spending their money helping Chinese companies build up their infrastructure and fund the development of technology in China?"
I'd rather have someone else funding China than us. At least that way we won't be pointing at ourselves as the source of the proverbial blade that got drawn across our national throat.
"We live in a world economy."
By choice, not by necessity.
"We need to constantly work to improve how we do things. We need to constantly be investing in new technology. We need to always be looking for new markets for our products. We need to always be looking for ways to imporve efficiency."
All of which can be done without extensive dependency upon foreign nations, like was done during the first 170 years of this nation's existence.
"If we don't someone out there will pass us by. They'll be able to make things faster and cheaper. They'll have better technology. They'll be able to do things that we can't."
Sorry, but the majority of that is funded through the purchasing power of US dollars obtained through free trade policies. If we had continued with protectionist economic policies most nations that have surpassed us in many things would still be struggling to catch up.
"In our country the Unions are constantly fighting against this. They oppose new technology because it allows us to manufacture things will less people per item we make."
Correct, they are a major problem since they have become corporations themselves, selling their members to the highest bidder. That's why they also hate Right to Work laws which ends compulsory unionism schemes. That's why it annoys me that Hastert has refused to schedule a roll-call vote on a National Right to Work Law, which would make it illegal to force people to join or pay dues/fees to a union to get or keep a job.
"Isolationism simply leads to irrevalence."
Isolationism and protectionism are entirely seperate entities. This country has been heavily involved internationally during even some of it's most heavily protectionist periods.
"Much of our military lead is a technological one. I don't mean to discount the incredible value of a well trained volunteer military, but our relatively small volunteer army wouldn't be able to do what it does without the technological advantages it has. We wouldn't be able to control battlefields without our complete dominance in air superiority. We wouldn't be able to accurately bomb strategic targets with few to no losses without our technological advantages."
And most of that is being etched away by foreign militaries that are feeding on American free trade policies. US trade dollars and technological investments funds most of the military gap closure between the US and China, which most defense groups are in agreement is closing by at least 2 years for every calendar year that passes. Imagine in 15-20 years a Chinese military with equal capbilities in most of it's military (and numerical superiority) and that'll be end result of penny-wise pound-foolish American free trade policies.
"To feed the American economy, we need trade. We need raw materials."
Then we only do trade treaties specifically with those nations that have raw materials not physically available in the United States.
"There's no way America could have grown to be a superpower without trade and foreign investment, and if we do to much to discourage trade and foreign investment, our power will fade."
That is incorrect. Before 1960 no more than 5% of the US economy was dependent upon foreign trade, and most of that consisted of raw materials and luxury good imports and exports of surplus finished goods. And we were an unmatched, technologically superior world power. Most areas we had fallen behind on were from neglecting the military BY CHOICE (a leftover from the inherent dislike of standing armies), not because of protectionist policies. The basic long-term ability for a nation to remain a world power is industrial infrastructure. For a nation to survive in the long term it has to have a heavy industry base capable of prolonged use for warfare, and as free as possible from enemy interference. China is playing it smart, they practice protectionism at home while encouraging free trade policies by the United States. As a result, their industrial base is rapidly expanding and their technological capabilities are skyrocketing. American free trade policies is the turbo-booster for their protectionist policies. I have no doubt in 10-15 years you'll see a sudden rise in wages across the employment spectrum in China pushed by the Chinese govt, to create a domestic consumer base to replace the US consumer base. Once enough of their economy is no longer dependent on the USA, though damaging it still my be, they will be able to afford a trade cutt-off with United States and war.
bttt
Well said!
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.