Posted on 03/16/2006 11:57:00 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement
NAILED IT!
Bump to the top.
lol, i figured :)
Now, Johnnie...
Stop flopping about on the floor, and screaming about "closet bigotry".
It's getting very tiresome for us adults.
Settle down, stop with the tears and the theatrics, ....and maybe someone will take you out to the park, or an ice cream shop, and afterwards to McDonald’s or maybe even to a Chuck E Cheese’s.
Your fears notwithstanding, it has so far worked out.
What are you afraid the chinese would do with their terminal?
Calling racist the last refuge of the weak mind.
And I said I wasn't calling you names -- only pointing out that saying, "I don't trust any Arabs" is a racist statement. Obviously so, I'm surprised you'd even try to defend such a statement. This makes me wonder how honest you're being in this discussion.
Why should we trust them after their close ties to Al Quaeda?
Because all that was last century. This century, they've been our steadfast ally.
Times change, alliances shift. This century, the UAE has been on our side against the terrorists.
That isn't true, flat out. The case Bush makes is very simple, I'm surprised you'd restate it so incorrectly.
An error like that almost has to be purposeful.
The deal went thru because there was evidence UAE and DPW were trusted allies who had never once endangered a port.
And there is *no* evidence that they would ever become a threat.
The prez was going on 'evidence' to make his policy decisions. Ya'll are going on fear, and something darker.
With no evidence, you are acting no different that the Ds that we've always come down so hard on.
This decision was made, by-and-large, based on direct and incontravertable evidence of the UAE's complicity with, and involvement in the 9/11 attack.
Last century was 6 years ago. I do nto think any coutry inthat region is worthy of this level of trust. Given time maybe but there has not been enough.
The Chinese are not known for carrying out terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, and the Saudi company you refer to calls on a number of ports and terminals in the US, but does not lease or operate the terminals at which these calls are made.
And I find it curious that you exclude yourself from your contention that "the public is both stupid and hypocritical." Who exactly is this "public"? Everyone who happens to disagree with you?
Not quite. 9/11 was in 2001, in case you've forgotten. It's not exactly ancient history.
And Dubai has a disturbing record as a focal point for terrorist funding, transit, and logistics. Putting free-trade lipstick on an otherwise indistinguishable middle eastern dictatorship, and getting all starry-eyed over the pretty lights and great big buildings in Dubai, doesn't change its fundamental character as a terrorist trading post with a Shari'a core.
Knee-jerkers. And this Dubai deal was the biggest case of jumping knees I've witnessed in the last ten years.
Well, maybe NAFTA's not ALL bad!
Mark
Bump for later
What is perhaps most surprising is the utter lack of a reasoned case in support of the deal that takes account of (1) the actual security obligations that accrue to terminal operators (and consequently to DP world), (2) the history of Dubai as a transit and origination point for terrorist funding and logistics, (3) the reasoning behind the apparent lowering, in the specific case of DP World, of the record keeping and security bar otherwise applicable to foreign companies doing business domestically, and (4) the specific measures to be taken to assure security compliance and monitoring of DP World's operations.
Instead of a positive case addressing these concerns, the port deal supporters have chosen to launch a classic liberal attack against opponents that is designed solely to silence and terminate debate -- the charge of racism.
Right on. People are also sick of being told that Islam is a religion of peace, and that (fill-in-the-blank-Arab-country) is our one true partner in fighting terrorism. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...
Oh?
Then please, be the first on these threads to provide me with some of that evidence! I'd *love* to see it. I would be with you, if I saw one single bit of evidence to suggest that UAE is guilty of supporting terrorist activities.
What "level of trust" do you mean?
Moving containers from one part of a port to another?
What kind of "trust" does that require? What could have possibly endangered us with this contract?
Again, do you have any evidence to back that up?
Pre-9/11 was a *long* time ago, another world.
9/11 changed everything. The UAE has been a steadfast, trustworthy ally since then. Evidence that they would not endanger us in any way by having one of their companies moving crates around at some of our ports.
This lack of citing evidence by the 'anti-UAE' crowd says more about this opposition than anything else I can imagine.
Conservatives make *fun* of people who use fear and emotion as the basis for policy decision. And people who use fear and emotion to make a decision that goes against the evidence -- well, that's what we call a Liberal.
Settle down, stop with the tears and the theatrics, ....and maybe someone will take you out to the park, or an ice cream shop, and afterwards to McDonald’s or maybe even to a Chuck E Cheese’s."
ROFLMAO
Does this country recognize Isreal? No.
Do US companies have the right to lease terminals in UAE? No.
Have high ranking UAE officials had numerious meeting with Al Quaeda officials? Yes
Should we trust them to have a high level of access in any major US port? NO!!!!
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.