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.
You're the one who is obsessed with Michelle Malkin. You're welcome to look back through my posts. I've never mentioned her and rarely view her column.
And your problem of equating U.S. actions with Saddam's regime ... well, that's the rallying cry of the left.
They've always been positively oriented to fascist solutions ~ and Saddam was their buddy ever since the Ayatollahs took over!
Rokke, it's ALWAYS opinion and speculation here at FR, isn't it? We assess on what we see, hear, AND feel.
Of course I wasn't privy to what the White House may or may not have suggested to Abizaid, but let's put it THIS way:
Maybe the word for Abizaid shouldn't have been described as "ordered," but "solicited" by the WH to speak as he did on the matter, while he undoubtedly had his comments greenlighted by the WH. I still believe his comment was inappropriate.
As to my other questions posed towards Abizaid, I was playing devil's advocate of follow-up questions by the MSM whose answers (though honest) may have proven embarrassing or inappropriate as well.
"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."
Well, opposition to this particular business deal had less to do with "Arab," and more to do with the wacky tenets of their religion -- Islam.
When the "business" involves national security, Muslims are just not trusted by Americans.
Perhaps if the UAE's track record as an "ally" was longer....
So just how do you think the rejection of this deal will "hurt us?"
That "hurt" will go BOTH ways if that's the way the UAE wants to play it.
Thanks for the links. They present a balanced view from both sides. I didn't have time to read the second link completely, got most of the way through though, however both arguments are well thought out.
Until the confiscation of property was brought up, I thought perhaps it might have stemmed partly in interest of the internees safety. Lotta rednecks out there. Did you see the link I posted above about Unit 731? Pretty shocking.
My, that was a most unfortunate pun. I don't expect you to read the whole darn thing, but there is more in regards to the Imperial Army's plans to deliver biological payloads that you just might be interested in. Or not.
No doubt they were preparing to dump some nasty stuff on the West Coast.
What is the relevance of that to this thrad?
I already read through an excellent link that contained detailed info about the Armenian Genocide. Today, actually.
Let me get this straight: you are asserting that the American government would direct a genocidal slaughter of "ethnics" on the scale of Saddam, or the Ottomans?
Let me get away with what? I'm not sure where we're going with this exchange.
I cringed when I heard Condi state that Israel needed to cede even more land to those murdering b@stards. Omert seems to want to lead the cattle drive of Jews into the sea, so I guess the Israelis can't even trust their own government.
Since this process is so well known that's why no one will let the Turks off the hook on the genocide of the Armenians.
For the most part, that's all the Turks did, too ~ just relocate them.
The Brits thought they'd do that in South Africa in their attack against the Boor settlers. They ended up murdering over a hundred thousand women and children. The Nazis were later encouraged by such a success rate.
We exempt people from guilt when they organize a mass exodus in the face of disaster. Otherwise, we don't. The internment of the JAs (mostly women and children) falls into the category of such events which should not be forgiven.
Oy. Now I'm really depressed.
So, you're saying that the Democrat President's internment of Japanese Americans in WWII is on the same level as Saddam Hussein's atrocities?
And, please don't tell me you have a problem discerning.
It's either yes or no.
This thread jumped the tracks and landed on internment camps. You have some nerve asking the relevance of that to this thread. You've been the one doing the most to keep that subtopic going. Of course I could have ignored you, but what fun would that be?
The government's job is to utilize intelligence and assess threats to our country, and her interests. If they thought that it would be a good idea to intern people, then I hope they had a good reason to do so.
Rest assured that something like this will never happen again. No matter how bad it may get in our faces, our powers that be will roll over and play dead in the interests of being PC.
Relax, you're safe...
Afterward, of course, he murdered them all.
The excuse given for rounding up the JA women and children was pretty much the same.
Afterward Roosevelt didn't murder the families, but during the round-up there were people who died as a direct consequence of being relocated. People also died in the camps who would have survived elsewhere. And, there were some people shot by guards.
None of that is forgiveable.
That a mass murderer gives the same excuse for killing as that given by someone who only murdered a few really doesn't justify the lesser crime.
If a bomb-laden cargo plane leaves Dubai today for the Emirates terminal at JFK, we have 10 houra to figure it out.
Yet the DPW alarmists are silent today about building 87 at JFK's Cargo Section. Hypocrisy??????
The horse is dead. You can stop beating it.
No. And you are one of the best at sticking to facts to prove your point. That is the reason your comments about Abizaid stuck out to me in the first place.
"So just how do you think the rejection of this deal will "hurt us?""
In the spirit of opinion and speculation, here is how I think this will hurt us. First, militarily...it reduces the incentive for Arab nations to work with us, because they won't get anything in return. Saddam Hussein was their biggest threat and he's gone. The next biggest threat is terrorism. Al Qaeda has already directly threatened the UAE for its cooperation with us in the war on terror. The fastest way to reduce that threat is to stop cooperating with our military. They can close their ports to our military traffic and boot our surveillance assets out of Al Dhafra. Both resources are far more important to us than they are helpful to the UAE and we'll have no leverage if they decide to kick us out. Even if they decide not to kick us out all together, they can significantly complicate our operations by tying everything up with red tape and regulations. Again, there won't be a thing we can do about it.
In business and commerce, I expect we will lose a lot of significant contracts. The UAE is one of the fastest growing trade centers in the world. They have a lot of money to spend, and not a lot of indigenous business to spend it on. They import just about everything, and currently the US is its largest supplier. Everyone from Donald Trump to Lockheed Martin is making money in the UAE. But there is a lot of competition, and we just gave them a good reason to look at other options. My guess is the biggest winner from this debacle will be France, who is just waiting to edge their way into the UAE market. The party will go on, but we just took a leak on the living room carpet, and our welcome is wearing thin.
"That "hurt" will go BOTH ways if that's the way the UAE wants to play it."
How could we hurt the UAE? Kick them out of our ports? They hold all the cards here, including and especially one of the most strategic locations on the planet.
---Hypocrisy??????---
Stupidity!!!!!!
You're describing what "coyotes" do to their paying customers getting them across our border.
Since this process is so well known that's why no one will let the Turks off the hook on the genocide of the Armenians.
Is that why Armenians will maybe get 5 minutes of airtime on April 24th? Come on, the Armenian Genocide is not taught in schools. After all, the Turks are our (((friends))). There is a large Armenian community in greater Los Angeles area that has been trying to change this ignorance, but all they get is a pat on the head.
The Brits thought they'd do that in South Africa in their attack against the Boor settlers. They ended up murdering over a hundred thousand women and children. The Nazis were later encouraged by such a success rate.
Ahhhh, the Boer Wars. Talk about derailing a thread ;-) Btw, that was fought on both sides. In war, there has to be a loser. Being Irish Catholic, I'm not real fond of the British tactics when it comes to civilians.
We exempt people from guilt when they organize a mass exodus in the face of disaster. Otherwise, we don't. The internment of the JAs (mostly women and children) falls into the category of such events which should not be forgiven.
Could you possibly rephrase that paragraph? It doesn't make sense. Thanks....
Are you keeping up with the news from over there? Ask SJackson or Alouette to be on their ping list. It is more than depressing, it's scary. I thought Sharon was a sellout, but Omert? Yikes! Do a search on Amona here.
Okay. I want to be post 1100. Did I make it?
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.