Posted on 03/12/2006 7:51:11 PM PST by bayourant
Did Race play a role in the Port Deal discussions? The very charge is met by the likes of Sean Hannity and others with Righteous Indigination. In fact, to mention it makes you the true problem. Mark Levin in fact called a MAjor General a dirtbag over that charge. The below cartoons may be an issue now in the UAE. They are not cartoons about that ole darn prophet however. THere will be no boycotts over these but remember still they dont help things. The cartoonist just give us what we want sometimes. From MSNBC the following cartoon. There were many others that through the glory of the net are available to all.
That Imperial Unit was a real gas wasn't it? BTW, the Chicoms recently found the site ~ it'd been lost for over half a century.
Heckfar, ask the Armenians!
And then there were some shootings by troops who were under the impression they were supposed to be running a concentration camp. How stupid of them, eh?!
You didn't really think I'd let you get away with that one did you?
Before that book they used other sources.
Like I said, I have difficulty differentiating between one authoritarian third-worlder and another. All same thing, and they use the same arguments, and they all have the same ultimate objective.
We probably shouldn't have sent any missionaries anywhere you know!
One of the reasons that Islam has been resurgent in the 20th-and continues to grow unabated-is because the Western powers decided to colonize-rather than proselytize-the reconquered Middle East.
You'll notice that the decrease in Christians and Jews, mostly through expulsion, in that region of the world has coincided with an explosion in the Muslim population-through immigration and conversion-in the West.
The Western powers missed a golden opportunity to reclaim the lands that had once belonged to Christianity-had in fact been the foundation stone of the Church-after breaking the back of the Caliphate during WWI.
They had decades in which they could have finally purged the stain of the betrayal of Christianity left behind by the failure of The Crusades, the petty support of the Turkish Moslem empire during the Crimean War, and other notorious betrayals, but chose to engage in petty turf wars involving adherence to Sykes-Picot, or other territorial agreements.
Britain should have expanded upon the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and created a permanent Jewish homeland out of Trans-Jordan and the Palestine mandate.
France should have entrenched Roman Catholicism-in spite of its secular constitution-among their colonies.
If these countries had been returned back to fold, then Kemalism might have endured, and the only Islamist threat we would face today might only be the obscurantist, severe Wahhabis in the Arabian peninsula.
Israel understands. Will we finally start to support our best (and arguably only) ME ally?
I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
In fact, remember how very careful Gen. Pace was in his public statement on Rep. Murtha's agitation for OIF troop withdrawal? That was some verbal minuet, I tell you. Pace went out of his way to "honor" Murtha's service... well, they're both Marines ... before he so politely disagreed. The President also was very careful in any comments on Murtha, who had seriously compromised support for OIF, troop morale, had encouraged the enemy and set back the WOT.
I recall Tommy Franks being interviewed --- at the time his book was coming out during the 2004 campaign --- and when asked about politics, was very coy. And this is a retired general.
So, when I viewed Abizaid making his pro-ports deal pitch plus "anti-Arab" allegations, it struck me like cold water in the face. Military brass, to say the least, are and should be totally focused on military strategy and operations. They are out of their depth in political matters, although they are in the unenviable position of being a bridge between politicians and the troops. Abizaid could be understood to the extent that we dock some ships in UAE and our guys take R'n'R in Dubai; but,as far as making the anti-Arab allegation, that was unprofessional.
Politicians are always far behind what the American public knows. They're in their own special time warp, as they live out their days in the cocoon of luncheons, receptions, photo ops, shaking the hands of fawning lobbyists and ... well, you take it from there.
Please do not equate the WWII internment of Japanese Americans with what Hussein has done. You should not have a problem discerning the difference, unless you are sleep-deprived or something.
Having said that, please note -- as the Democrats will not --- that it was a Democrat president who ordered the internment.
Let me repost Gen Abizaid's entire comment...
I'm very dismayed by the emotional response that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing that was totally unnecessary. I don't want to comment on the port issue, but I will say that the UAE is a good friend and we need to keep them that way."
What is it about this statement that strikes you and incorrect or inappropriate?
"In fact, remember how very careful Gen. Pace was in his public statement on Rep. Murtha's agitation for OIF troop withdrawal?"
Pace was responding to specific comments by a specific Congressman. That is a different scenario than the broad UAE bashing that occurred over the ports deal. Here is a bit of some of Pace's recent comments concerning the port deal..."My point is that somehow before we all rush to a judgment either for or against, we ought to allow ourselves as a nation to have an open dialogue take the time necessary to inform ourselves, and then make a decision about which we can be proud."
"Military brass, to say the least, are and should be totally focused on military strategy and operations."
Which is exactly why the way this port deal was handled is SO important to Generals like Abizaid and Pace. They will have to deal with the immediate impacts and it will potentially change the entire environment in which they conduct strategy and operations.
"Abizaid could be understood to the extent that we dock some ships in UAE and our guys take R'n'R in Dubai;"
Do you really think that is the extent of the role the UAE plays in our CENTCOM operations? If so, you are greatly underinformed.
"but,as far as making the anti-Arab allegation, that was unprofessional."
Again, was he correct in what he said or not?
"I predict it will come from Americans recruited from our prison system. (But the important thing is, we're keep our eye on those A-rabs, aren't we?)"
Who do you think radicalizes the prisons into Islamism?
Yes, the important thing is we keep the Gulf State Wahabbists and their charities and sheiks from funding the indoctrination of our prisons, Mosques, unversities, etc.
That is a great model for the ports deal. We are knowingly allowing them to buy their way into our country. In the case of prisons that is a criminal infrastructure. In the case of universities it is intellectual infrastructure which is retrospectively changing history.
Whatever the extent of our military partnership with UAE... OUR U.S. military fights on behalf of the American people. The American people, far more than any other nationality except perhaps the Aussies, support the War on Terror and it's out of line for Abizaid to characterize those of us opposed to the DPW business transaction as "Arab and Muslim bashers." And, by doing so, he DID comment on the "ports issue."
Abizaid's language was unfortunate and I now see him in a different light. If he was chastising the majority of the American public for not "understanding" our alliances, well whose fault is that? We thought we had defined the enemy; we're being told that some of our past enemies are now our friends or at least "potential" friends.
I suggest taking a look at the history of our ever-changing "alliances" in the Middle East.
And Gen Abizaid is THE U.S. military leader charged with prosecuting the war on terror in its most volitile region. Are you suggesting that he isn't aware of who actually does the fighting in the war on terror, and what the stakes are?
" it's out of line for Abizaid to characterize those of us opposed to the DPW business transaction as "Arab and Muslim bashers." "
For the third time on this thread, let me repeat Abizaid's comment..."I'm very dismayed by the emotional response that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing that was totally unnecessary." He didn't say "All the arguments against the port deal are Arab and Muslim bashing." But certainly, some were. He was dismayed by those arguments. We all should be as there isn't much substance to that type of argument. Certainly not enough to force a decision that will almost certainly have grave impacts on our ability to fight the war on terror.
"If he was chastising the majority of the American public for not "understanding" our alliances, well whose fault is that?"
First, or all, he only chastised those whose arguments against the deal were little more than Arab bashing. Do you think that amounts to a majority of the arguments? Second, it is your fault if you don't understand our alliances. You are an American. You are free to investigate every aspect of how our government works and who it works with. If the extent of your investigation is to read biased media reports (I'm not saying that is true in your case), than you will NEVER understand our alliances.
"we're being told that some of our past enemies are now our friends or at least "potential" friends."
Exactly who told you the UAE was our enemy. They've been one of our allies since the early 70's.
"I can't recall ever being anything other than civil to people who wanted to engage in genuinely civil discussions."
Absolutely true. Your restrained and polite responses to being baited here are a case in point.
It is very strange to complain about being pinged - for ten or more posts no less.
Helpful internet hint: If you don't like the ping, ignore it.
Now you've gone and done it.
The inevitable Wrath of Howlin.
;-)
Seriously though, good advice.
It's a rule I try to follow.
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
"Unfortunately, the Arab country involved happens to be one of our strongest and oldest allies in the region. And the fundamental reason for terminating the deal was the belief that we couldn't trust that ally. We essentially spit in their face. It's going to hurt us in many strategic ways and will have a significant impact on CENTCOM planning for future operations. "
History does not support you.
Can we have been any better allies to SA? We bailed out their a** in Gulf 1 with our blood and treasure. We bent over backwards (huge mistake!) to respect their warped sensibilities. Remember Pres Bush the Father having Thanksgiving dinner off shore? Our troops Christmas there? Our female soldiers in full burkha gear?
We put up with all their cr**, they invested here, set up their Wahabbi terror supporting charities and Wahabbi clerics and materials in schools, Mosques and prisons here. Took over University ME Departments. Basically had free run. Did it matter?
Did they then turn around and ask us to leave their country at Bin Laden's urging?
Then why isn't your post about the UAE? The fundamental problem with most of the arguments against the port deal, is that they fall apart unless they are supported with examples outside the UAE. The fact that we've fallen all over ourselves to save France's butt on numerous occasions doesn't stop them from stabbing us in the back whenever they can. However, that doesn't mean we stop supporting Great Britain.
"Did they then turn around and ask us to leave their country at Bin Laden's urging?"
That is a factually incorrect statement. Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies. That is not why they asked us to stop military operations from their country.
I'll give you a chance to support your case for UAE: What was their response to 9/11?
By the way, do you believe that Arabs and Muslims are not bigoted towards Americans, Europeans and infidels?
Why, because we have acted as patriots, are we on the defensive about racism simply because we want our country to be safe and secure? Why these attacks on Americans on behalf of another nation?
Alliances are built on many things, dear Rokke, and are built over time not overnight. I also understand that favorable business deals are one of those building blocks, as in the controversial outsourcing of customer service to India. However, we also have democracy in common with India and, unlike the UAE, a majority of the populace admires the U.S.
UAE is a monarchy that follows Sharia law. I can see allying with such a nation -- if they concede to our security requirements -- in these times due to the overwhelming importance of the WOT; even so, how many concessions do WE make and how far do we go down the slippery slope of appeasement to islam in general?
Pre-WOT, what was the importance of our alliance with UAE? Please educate me, since I am at fault in "understanding" this.
"Then why isn't your post about the UAE?"
I am arguing by analogy because thus far you and I are merely speculating about what UAE MAY do in response to our pulling out of the port deal. I can't answer what did NOT yet happen. I do speculate the reverse to your position. I don't believe the UAE will do anything to our military interests on the basis of the port deal. That is not to say that should they decide for other reasons at some point to curtail their US connection, say pressure from Islamists, they won't bang the port drum for all they can.
My answer was by analogy to what the Saudis did to us despite our unremitting suck up.
"That is a factually incorrect statement. Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies. That is not why they asked us to stop military operations from their country."
Right. You don't want to look at the obvious.
Many elements in their governments, not to mention the populace, of SA, and ALL Gulf States including UAE support Al Qaeda and terrorism.
They play both sides. That's the objection.
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.