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.
Except that right now, DP World owns P&O. P&O is gone. DP World now owns the U.S. subsidiaries that run the terminals.
In other words, the deal is DONE, and at this moment, it is exactly what the opponents wanted to STOP.
The only way DP World ends up NOT running the terminals is if either Congress passes a law to prevent it, or if DP World, out of the kindness of its heart (or more clearly out of the desire to maximize the profit potential) sells the american companies to another company.
And since the side deals they were offering were trashed by congress, we can't even count on them -- for example, they promised to hold off taking control for the 45-day period, but when congress voted to ban the deal that ended the deal and so now they can legally throw out the americans and put their people in if they want (they won't).
In fact, the people who said that we shouldn't STOP this deal because legally there was no reason to do so, and we are the rule of law -- these people WON, because the law was followed, the deal was approved, and the P&O stockholders got to sell their company on the open market as they desired.
The port opponents who are so happy they "won", and are gloating -- the only reason they will "win" is because there arguments were false.
In other words, it's because UAE IS our friend and ally, because DP World DIDN'T buy P&O to take over our terminals, because DP World DOES value our cooperation, and therefore will sell off the assets to protect the strong relationship we have with them -- because they will act totally contrary to what the opponents claimed about them -- that's why the opponents will win.
I just watched at Start Trek -TNG rerun, where Captain Picard tells a native to go ahead and shoot him to prove that he's not a God. The guy does shoot him, and the bleeding body reveals the truth.
If the native was like the opponents, he'd be cheering that he had wounded the captain -- whereas in the show they native realised the captain wasn't lying, and that he was wrong.
The opponents WIN because they were wrong and UAE/DP World are acting like adults.
Who do you think is winning in that poll? Did you think that "bad" meant that killing the deal was bad, or that the deal that was killed was bad?
And every single President since this countries inception has been a Christian. I'm not sure your point is significant in this context.
"The UAE is even worse than the former states, at least according to one poll, which indicates that over 70% of the Muslim native population has a hostile view of the United States."
This statistic is being repeated over and over again. Almost as much as the poll that says 70% of Americans don't think the DPW deal should be permitted. I would suggest that a vast majority of Americans have a hostile view of Muslims. The common ingredient is fear and mutual distrust. The only cure is to increase interaction between the two nations.
"I'm not aware of any similar ones taking place in Dubai, or Abu Dhabi, or anywhere else in the Trucial states."
The UAE was one of the first countries in the world to offer its condolences to the United States after September 11. Every year since then it holds an official ceremony in memory of the Sept 11 victims.
"but the fact that I didn't see or hear of them-and most Americans weren't aware of them, if they did take place-is telling."
It is? Now that you know they've taken place, what does the fact you didn't know tell you? Maybe that what you read in the MSM about countries like the UAE isn't necessarily the whole picture? Why do you think our media would want you to think that the nations of the Middle East (heck, that all the nations of the world) do not support us or our war on terror? Is it possible the media is trying to convince you that we are on the wrong side of world opinion? Is the fact that your opinion is being actively shaped by a liberal MSM agenda becoming a little clearer?
When I see the degree to which the main stream news, politicians and commentators b.s. us on things, I can usually only find two or three ways to decide.
If I get enough evidence and have enough time to study something, I can come to some conclusions that I trust. There was little time, and zero evidence in this Ports deal, outside of what various statements by mostly untrustworthy people.
If the above is not possible, as in this case, then I can just pick one of the players who has a chance to know more, and pretty much trust them. That's not a very reliable way to reach a conclusion, but given how easy it is to misrepresent such affairs, it seems the best I can do.
Or, on the flip side, I can look at whom I trust the least and see where they stand or claim to stand. This incident was admittedly a mixed bag, with strange bedfellows all over the map. But with Bush on one side and Hillary the other, that biases me toward supporting the Ports deal.
In some cases, such as this, one can also look at the money, and the outcome. The Clintons got a bunch of money, and a bunch of normally reliable Republicans are pissed at Bush. That sure stinks, and sure suggests that we got smoked on this one.
One can make claims to be big picture and putting ones family above all else. But I have zip zero nadda confidence that I actually know which side of this deal, if the reality were known to us, would best support the safety of my family. For example, if the failure of this deal means that we have less ability to control Iran and the Straits of Hormuz, then this could be a major weakening of our side in this war. It could increase the risk of major economic damage to us, and that in turn could increase the risk of Hillary winning the White House.
That would suck big time, and increase the risk that my descendents did not live in the freedom that we enjoy.
So sure, saying you put the safety of your family above all else sure sounds strong, but I have no confidence at all that either you or I know what that means in this case. We don't know, really don't know, what was really happening here, nor do we know what we would have recommended, had we known.
And I bet those who know bayourant personally would vouch that he wouldn't make things up.
So the obvious explanation is he heard something (like mudball), and as he processed it he thought the general had been called a "dirtbag", and that's what his mind remembered.
First of all, the fact that we've always had a Christian POTUS-in a country where over eighty percent of the population is Christian-is not in any way comparable to the ruthless, barbaric practices of a fascistic religious monarchy, which espouses the most austere, regressive, hostile elements of an already retrograde, stultified religious culture.
Neither the Congress nor the Chief executive is empowered to deny anyone their civil rights or civil liberties based upon their religious preference.
Furthermore, the United States government doesn't proselytize people into the Christian faith.
Far from it.
And having a hostile view of Muslims, and seeking their complete extermination and/or conversion are two entirely separate issues.
Your call for more integration is the straight out of the Eurabia handbook.
Eurabia is the name of a little journal founded in 1975 by the official perpetrators of the plot, of the conspiracy: the Association France-Pays Arabes in Paris, the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen Orient in Geneva, and the European Coordinating Committee of the Association for Friendship wih the Arab World.
I suggest that you read Fallaci, and Bat Yeor, and Robert Spenser.
What kind of assistance do you mean? Before Desert Storm, we really didn't need their military bases. But we've been close allies with the UAE since 1971. We've had close relations with Kuwait since the early 60's, including mutual agreements that allowed us to fly our flag over their oil tankers in the late 80's. Relations with Qatar go back to the early 70's.
"What is lacking in these countries is freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, equality for women and democracy."
True. But we aren't going to change that by cutting all ties with them. That certainly hasn't helped matters in Iran and Syria. Conversely, since becoming even closer to our Arab allies since Desert Storm, all of those countries have made huge strides toward adapting a more western philosophy in all those things you list.
I believe your point was "Shared technology (invented by the West) does not equal in any way shared values." I stated (accurately) that the Menonites would disagree with your statement. In other words, they reject modern technology as a means of demonstrating they reject modern values. I never claimed they were a terrorist organization.
My thoughts exactly.
"Except that right now, DP World owns P&O. P&O is gone. DP World now owns the U.S. subsidiaries that run the terminals.
In other words, the deal is DONE, and at this moment, it is exactly what the opponents wanted to STOP."
You think so, eh? If DP World does not divest itself of the U.S. ports by selling them to a U.S. entity, Congress will pass the law to stop it. The done deal will be an undone deal if DP World makes one false move in divesting the U.S. ports. Do you think Congress is not watching and waiting to read the fine print of the divestiture? Do you not think that if even one word of the divestiture is inaccurate, phony, or otherwise fraudulent, that Congress won't jump down theirs and the Bush Admin's throats? The deal is over. It's dead. Live with it.
Modernism was touted by the Ba'athists, and the Nasserites, and the pan-Arabists for a time.
There is no one more keen on acquiring modern implements of destruction than terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, but that doesn't prevent them from desiring a return to pre- medieval times.
The remark most often made whenever another Yankee cap-wearing, boombox-carrying, seemingly "modern" Muslim goes on a self-immolation mission that results in the deaths of scores of his purported countrymen-the humans that live in his adopted nation, a nation that has embraced him, but which he has rejected-is how conflicted he was before finalizing his kamikaze mission.
It is an irreconcilable internal conflict.
Don't trust me, read Dalrymple.
And I have no idea what you were implying in your previously posted comment.
Are you seriously implying that we should normalize diplomatic relations with Iran or Syria?
I don't know if this has dawned on you, but we tried the "engagement" strategy with both of those nations-especially the IRI-and it was a miserable, unmitigated failure.
I already said I thought your point wasn't relevant to this issue. You've reduced its relevancy even further with this statement. You find it appropriate that a country which is over 80% Christian elects Christian leaders, but inappropriate that countries which are over 90% Muslim elect Muslim leaders?! As for the rest of your post, I am very familiar with American civics and Islamic fundamentalism. I also understand that you cannot destroy Islamic fundamentalism with force. That's already been tried. It doesn't work. They are like roaches. But you can't live with them either. The best solution is to turn them on themselves, and let the cancer eat itself. Opening a Starbucks next to a Mosque is one of the first, small steps.
"You live in a world of your own creation, and I doubt there is anything that could shake you from it."
Geez, can't you come up with an original line of your own rather than parroting off of mine: "You can live in your world of self deception, just don't ask me to join you, and don't ask your country to join you either."
Plagarism is the greatest form of flattery.
Absolutely not. They are lost causes. But they demonstrate what happens when we severe our opportunities to provide a positive influence. Those countries are moving backwards while the rest of the Middle East moves forwards. Severing ties wasn't our choice or our fault. And I believe both Syria and Iran should pay the penalty for breaking away. But in the meantime, they remain the regions greatest incubators of anti-western nutjobs, while countries like Bahrain sponsor Formula 1 races, and the UAE sponsors tennis and golf tournaments. Clearly, our "engagement" strategy with those countries is working just fine.
I live to please.
Thank you.
That is precisely my point.
Almost nothing that occurs within the Arabian peninsula is done through democratic means.
The concept of freedom, let alone, political pluralism, doesn't exist.
In fact, in some cases the people who have introduced democratic reforms-such as women's suffrage in Kuwait-have been autocratic monarchs, such as the Sabah dynasty.
Conversely, when there is democracy, it tends to favor precisely those that are most willing to eliminate it upon their election, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the successors to the Ikwhan.
I highly doubt that charge.
Next thing you're going to tell me Janet Reno is dating Russell Crowe.
http://tylertool.store.yahoo.com/dusbushigper.html
;-)
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.