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.
The UAE was one of the first countries in the world to offer its condolences after 9/11. Every year on 9/11 it hosts a state ceremony outside the US Embassy in memory of the victims of 9/11. And it has been our strongest ally in the region since 9/11.
"By the way, do you believe that Arabs and Muslims are not bigoted towards Americans, Europeans and infidels?"
Yes, some are. Some aren't. But that is irrelevant. Some Arabs molest children. Does that entitle us to do the same?
"Alliances are built on many things, dear Rokke, and are built over time not overnight. "
Our alliance with the UAE stretches back to 1971. Only recently have we started to shift our relationship to India to one that might be considered "friendly"
"UAE is a monarchy that follows Sharia law."
It is not a monarchy. It is a federation. And the United States has never chosen its allies based on their legal system.
"Pre-WOT, what was the importance of our alliance with UAE? Please educate me, since I am at fault in "understanding" this."
The UAE occupies some of the most strategic territory on the face of the earth. Look at map and see if you can guess why. It sits at the gateway to the Persian Gulf. Its ports are among the best developed and most secure in one of the fastest growing economic regions on the planet. For many years prior to 9/11 it has been in the process of transforming its economy from being oil based to being a center or world trade and commerce. It is succeeding in that effort and has become the key trade center in Southwest Asia. Those are just a few of many reasons why our alliance with them has been and remains important.
OK. Then I meet your Saudi Arabian analogy with my French analogy. Do you think we should stop trade agreements with the British?
"Right. You don't want to look at the obvious."
What could be more obvious than outright fact? The Royal family that runs Saudi Arabia is at war with Al Qaeda. That is a matter of fact. Bin Laden hates them.
"ALL Gulf States including UAE support Al Qaeda and terrorism."
Now you are just flat out making things up. If your arguments were strong, you could support them with facts. Not fantasy. Al Qaeda has specifically threatened the UAE for its support of the US war on terror. That is a fact. The UAE has ignored their threats. That is a fact. Their support of our war on terror has grown continuously since 9/11. That is a fact. We could not have accomplished what we have accomplished against Al Qaeda without the use of their ports and airfields. That is a fact. Now it's your turn. I want some facts detailing how the UAE supports Al Qaeda and terrorism.
The government that supports Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and al-Jazeera?
Rokke, should we allow that nation to have access to critical infrastructure within the United States, or conduits through which they can export terrorism?
Simply because they are an "ally" in the GWOT?
It is not a monarchy. It is a federation.
Nice dodge. Dubai is a monarchy, as is each of the Emirates that comprise the federation. And they all follow Sharia law in their business dealings.
I'll ask you again. What did the U.S. alliance with UAE pre-WOT consist of? Because you rambled all over the place on that one and did not answer the question.
"By the way, do you believe that Arabs and Muslims are not bigoted towards Americans, Europeans and infidels?"
Yes, some are. Some aren't. But that is irrelevant. Some Arabs molest children. Does that entitle us to do the same?
I was not asking in terms of moral equivalence, but as a point of information. But go ahead, and keep your blinders on to the deadly enemy that faces us.
It is no distinction to be threatened by AQ. They threaten everyone.
I think I just got done discussing this with Dervish. Let me repeat what I said to him..."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 government that supports Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and al-Jazeera?"
In all honesty, CNN International and the BBC are far more damaging to American interests than Al Jazeera. And our AP newservice is almost as damaging. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a controversial, crack pot, university professor who advocates a violent end to Israel and hates America. Gee. Sounds like 90% of our university professors. So Qatar supports free speech and an independent press...I thought the fact that Dubai doesn't was listed among the reasons we should reject the port deal with them.
"should we allow that nation to have access to critical infrastructure within the United States, or conduits through which they can export terrorism?"
Not that managing port terminals would do that, but...yes. We've been working with Qatar since 1973. We currently base our CENTCOM HQ there. We have never had any indications that they have used their contacts with us to export terrorism. Quite the opposite in fact.
"Now you are just flat out making things up. If your arguments were strong, you could support them with facts. Not fantasy."
Let's be clear here - neither of us till now has supported our statements with "facts." Now I have.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010392.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22303-2002Feb16?language=printer
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Al_Qaeda_bragged_of_infiltrating_Emirates_0302.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/160704.php
There are Islamists who support Al Qaeda in all Gulf states. You seem to misunderstand how this works. Why do you suppose SA and other Gulf countries support terror and Islamists throughout the world? Do you think Bin Laden is at war with the Gulf sheik supporters of the Chechnyan Jihad?
"The Royal family that runs Saudi Arabia is at war with Al Qaeda. That is a matter of fact. Bin Laden hates them. "
He only hates the ones who want to modernize. He has co-opted many Islamist sheiks in the Gulf states.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83105/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox.html
So is Great Britain. So what?
"And they all follow Sharia law in their business dealings."
Why don't you explain to me how that impacts our trade with them. And are you familiar with Free Zones?
"What did the U.S. alliance with UAE pre-WOT consist of? "
Would you like me to repeat my post to you? Our alliance with the UAE started in 1971. That was 30 years before 2001. We've had such a strong relationship with them that we sold them the most advanced version of the F-16 ever made in 1998. They now fly F-16's with more capability than our own. I could go on, but before I do I want to be sure you are actually reading and understanding what I write.
"But go ahead, and keep your blinders on to the deadly enemy that faces us."
Blinders is an appropriate word here. Based on our correspondence, I think it is clear whose vision is restricted to a very narrow viewpoint.
"They now fly F-16's with more capability than our own."
"Our alliance with the UAE started in 1971."
Even while the Sheiks were hanging out with Bin Laden post Khobar, post Cole, while Bin Laden was planning 9/11 and Clinton was (at least on paper) after him.
Because we were stupid then do we have to keep being stupid?
That's the second or third time you've personalized your posts to me.
So, if you can't stick to the issue, you have no case.
Enjoy your "broad viewpoint."
Source 1. Al Qaeda claims a lot of things. Since when do we accept their claims as fact? The most important point from the Al Qaeda letter to the UAE is the fact that Al Qaeda is threatening the UAE for all the support the UAE has given the United States in the WOT. If anything, this Al Qaeda letter is evidence of why we should support the UAE.
Source 2. Written in 2002 and mostly talks about pre 9/11. Also, it discusses private companies. Not State Governments.
Source 3. See source 1.
Source 4. The EU supports Hamas. Should we cut trade with them?
Source 5. Pre 9/11.
Source 6. So are you saying organized crime is a problem unique to the UAE.
"There are Islamists who support Al Qaeda in all Gulf states."
There are Islamists who support Al Qaeda in every nation of the world, including this one.
"He only hates the ones who want to modernize."
He has declared Jihad on the whole Saudi royal family. And they have declared war on him. The fact remains, the reason they asked us to stop military operations out of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Bin Laden.
Um...I believe it is you I am addressing. Who else would you like me personalize my posts to? And I am specifically answering questions you have asked me. Could I stick any closer to the issue than by answering each of your questions? You may not like the answers, but at least I do you the service of responding to your questions. That is more than I can say for you.
Do CNN and the BBC have top-flight correspondents that belong to Al Qaeda cells, or who've been exposed as actual Ba'ahist agents?
And no, Qatar does not support either freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which is why you'll never see a critical story about the Thani clan or ruling regime broadcast on Al-Jazeera.
There is no substantive difference between Qatar and the UAE on these issues, and yet there are some people who'll criticize the government for allowing Al-Jazeera to establish outposts in the United States, but defend this DP World-P&O transaction.
Notice the contradiction?
Don't be such a whiner. You didn't answer all my questions.
But in attempting to answer some of them, you have revealed much about yourself.
Anyway, DPW now owns all of what was formerly P&O, and that includes the U.S. ports in question. I suggest you contact your representative about the matter for an update.
Buh bye.
I might ask you to "prove" Abizaid wasn't asked or strongly encouraged or a mention facilitated by the WH to make a statement that suggesting "bashing," bigot,"xenophobe," or "racist" -- things that the President has been implying refarding objections to this Dubai Deal to certain members of the press.
"Timing?!?! The issue couldn't be any more current. Out of the ordinary...he was commenting on a major strategic issue ...he was responding to a reporter's question about an issue that will have a very significant effect on his ability to accomplish his mission in Southwest Asia. It is certainly not out of the ordinary for him to comment on that issue."
Huh?? A CENTCOM General giving subjective social commentary now of all times?
Has the General yet described exactly who was "bashing," the nature, and exactly how he describes "bashing"??
And did HE feel as though part of himself was bashed indirectly as an "Arab-American"? Is there a difference between "Arab Muslims," and "Arab Christians"?
He could easily have opened himself at the press confereence to a semantic quandary and can o' wormsthat has NOTHING to do with his job. Fortunately even the GOP has "friends" in the MSM. (Btw, I could just imagine General Eisenhower commenting to the press in 1944 about those "German-Bashers.")
"Dubya simply miscalculated in his using the press, exploitation of Abizaid, and insulting the intelligence of the American people (most of which were conservatives.) MY OPINION."
"Which part of your statement is your opinion?"
All of it. And then some.
The handling of the DPW deal was/is still a total PR debacle whichever side of the issue you're on.
Was the Bush Administration ignorant about just how sensitive issue this potentially was going to be? It which required a finesse and openly debated dialog which should have begun months ago.
"My opinion...It was globalist business as usual. One foreign company was bought by another. It happens all the time. It just so happens in this case that Chuck Schumer recognized the opportunity to make political hay, so he did...."
The reaction of conservaive pundits and freepers has PROVEN this deal wasn't "business as usual."
That's where you're outta touch as was the Bush Administration.
Of COURSE Schumer and the Dems were going to hit an home run with this issue. Schumer and the Dems were underhanded by the GOP a baby-pitch on THE one issue they constantly lose -- "security."
"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."
As I've already stated, if so, a stronger case should have preempted the DPW Deal that may have quelled the serious objection you've just witnessed.
"It's going to hurt us in many strategic ways and will have a significant impact on CENTCOM planning for future operations."
Breaking THIS deal? Politics is politics. Business is business. Unless you anticipate some blackmail or extortion over it in the future? (And what kind of real "ally" would that prove them to be?)
"If Gen Abizaid didn't have an opinion (which he is allowed to voice) on the matter, he would be derelict in his duties."
We obviously disagree.
If you had, you'd know that I have a special place in my heart for Michelle ~ and that is FAR AWAY.
If you buy into her analytical method then you buy into the realities of JA internment because that was the basis she used to justify a possible "internment" or at least heavy-handed administration of Moslems, in general, in this country.
So, when you have Michelle comparing JA internment with modern affairs involving Arabs, I think it's quite fair to compare JA internment with modern affairs involving Arabs.
So, what is it you were saying? You don't want me to compare JA internment to modern affairs involving Arabs because that somehow suggests that Michelle Malkin is the only one entitled to do that?
I need an answer. Work one up.
You're asking me to prove a negative? Even if that were possible, I have no need. You have repeatedly stated that the Whitehouse told Gen Abizaid to make his statements. You obviously have no evidence to support that, and later in your last post you admit it is merely your opinion. I am fine with that.
"A CENTCOM General giving subjective social commentary now of all times?"
His comments weren't some broad, spontaneous sermon on debate tactics. He was directly responding to a specific question regarding a specific issue that is currently dominating the news cycle. When do you suppose he should answer a direct question about a specific topic?
"Has the General yet described exactly who was "bashing," the nature, and exactly how he describes "bashing"?? "
No, which makes it even more curious that certain individuals take more offense to his comments than others.
"And did HE feel as though part of himself was bashed indirectly as an "Arab-American"?"
Don't know, don't care. But you are starting to sound like you think his comments might have been self-motivated and initiated.
"He could easily have opened himself at the press confereence to a semantic quandary and can o' worms"
Easiest thing in the world at a press conference to say "No further comment".
"The handling of the DPW deal was/is still a total PR debacle whichever side of the issue you're on."
On this, we agree.
"The reaction of conservaive pundits and freepers has PROVEN this deal wasn't "business as usual.""
ONLY because this issue was brought to their attention (by the likes of Chuck Schumer no less). From there it was dramatically distorted by the MSM until the reality of what was actually involved is so obscured that most people can't really state with any certainty what was involved. The fact is, most of our ports are under foreign management. Several of our airports have various levels of foreign management. There have been 1500 CFIUS reviews of foreign investment in the United States including port management transfers to China and Saudi Arabia. None of them became the public issue this has because they didn't have conniving opportunists like Chuck Schumer distorting them and elevating them to a national debate.
"As I've already stated, if so, a stronger case should have preempted the DPW Deal that may have quelled the serious objection you've just witnessed."
Again, we agree. The Whitehouse was caught absolutely flat footed on this issue and never did really respond. They needed to move before the negative momentum and distortions that overwhelmed this issue became insurmountable.
"Breaking THIS deal? Politics is politics. Business is business."
When was the last time we canceled a major business deal with an ally because we said we couldn't trust them due to their ethnicity? That is going to have a long term impact on our future relations with the UAE. And it is going to hurt us.
Easy. I never said one word about Michelle Malkin. I also did not justify the internment of Japanese Americans. And I have followed the thread. How about you?
Sorry, but I do have a problem differentiating one type of forcible roundup of innocent people from another ~ subtle nuances are beyond me ~ particularly when people die because of them.
Now, Michelle? She's the current apologist who is cited so terribly often by a certain class of Freeper.
It's Michelle and Saddam I both toss into the category of "undifferentiated third-worlders". Now I know that's probably wrong. They wouldn't have gotten along all that well, particularly with Saddam cowering in the well under the front stairs, fearful that Michelle was another one of the evil Mongol invaders come back to kill him.
He would be wrong to think that but you gotta' believe Michelle would use it on him.
Including you...
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.