Posted on 03/21/2006 6:16:56 PM PST by mr_hammer
Arab and US officials are growing nervous at the prospect of a second congressional uprising against the acquisition of American assets by a Middle Eastern-controlled company in the wake of the Dubai Ports World debacle.
Snip ...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.ft.com ...
There would seem to be a large group of folks who hate Dubai more for allowing the construction of an Evangelical Church than anything else.
He knew you were going to ask that question.
Our own military is about .5% or less of our population. An equivalent Dubai military would have 500 members. If 10% were deployed to Iraq, that'd be about 50 people.
Anyone know how many field translators Dubai is providing our forces in Iraq and the rest of the region?
One thing we've learned over the centuries is that people are people.
Bet that'd be revealing eh?!
You might think about what UAE folks have at stake here.
"I always like to ask anyone concerning this uproar one simple question. Who do you trust more in matters of national security and the war on terror....Schumer/Clinton or G.W. Bush?"
Answer C) none of the above lately!
Good point.
No it isn't. In the WOT, Dubai, UAE, and most islamic govts are our allies. These govts are our allies because they are threatened by islamic fundlementalism whose objective is to replace all these govts with Theocracies similar to the Taliban.
I'm sure that we can agree that all these islamic govts are not the best allies because there are internal political situations that they must consider, no different from the internal political situations that we have to consider.
As has been pointed out on this thread, there are no UAE troops in Iraq. There are also no French troops there. In both cases, each countries participation would create huge internal unrest. The Emirs would likely be overthrown.
In the WOT, it is of utmost importance for the US that the Emirs, the Sauds, Mushareff, etc remain in place because if they were to be replaced, the consequences would be a disaster.
As for the War on Islam, there it is a degree of truth to that. But it is mainly a war of demographics
There is a huge misconception that the WOT is a military war. It is not. Bush's utilization of pre-emption/military intervention was sorely needed to demonstrate what the US can and will do in the WOT. But the reality is that the WOT will continue to be waged most effectively using law enforcement, intelligence, and influencing public opinion in the islamic world.
This is why the port debacle and the subject of this thread are the equivalent of losing a battle in the WOT. It re-enforces a negative public opinion in the islamic world, in addition to undermining our relations with an ally.
Regarding the photo of the President and the King: I wish that every time this picture appeared, it would be noted that the king is over 80 years old. One shouldn't read too much into it if the President holds the hand of an elderly person. In fact one shouldn't read anything mean into it.
That's because rational people understand that the Chicoms are not attacking us. The Islamists are. If we were on an adventure in Korea, maybe we'd have something to worry about.
Dubai is part of the UAE; it doesn't count as two governments. Besides, unrepresentative tyrannies that follow Islamic law are hardly reliable and given their history the word "ally" is not appropriate unless followed by "of convenience". By treating those governments as legitimate (which they are not) we are legitimizing despotism. Since they are not representative governments, and rule by force anyway, how much do their domestic politics really affect their policies? Not a whole lot, not in the way that domestic politics affect policies in the West.
I would very much like to see this list of "Islamic" governments that are our allies. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that list can't be particularly long and consists entirely of countries whose continued existence depends on the presence of US military forces.
France's government is legitimate because it is representative. However, they are not an ally in any meaningful sense and have not been in quite some time (since 1968 at least). Plus they were in up to their eyeballs with Saddam and never supported the mission, even if no contribution were expected of them. So them not having troops in Iraq is hardly unexpected.
I am rather shocked to see someone seriously propose that the primary front in this war is in law enforcement. That is precisely the approach taken in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Didn't 9/11 wake you up to the inadequacy of that approach?
Moreover, the only convincing of public opinion we need to do in the Arab world is to make them fear us more terribly than anything else. The "Arab street" is a joke - they will do what their heavy-handed tyrants force them to do. With the tyrants you insist must be kept in place, no possible influencing of public opinion can occur. In fact, it is quite arguable that keeping the Emirs, Sauds, and other despots in power is precisely what sets opinion against us - but for the US' support, these tyrants might not rule them by force.
This is a military war, we've already fought two significant campaigns in it. To say otherwise is to twist the very meaning of the words into meaninglessness.
Really? Then why haven't they done it?
If terrorists can do something, they will do it, as soon as they can do it.
But apparently, for the most part, do not feel 'threatened' enough to help. Take our long-term 'staunch' ally, Turkey, for example. They refused us even permission to launch from our own bases when confronting Saddam. I suspect most over there who claim to be our 'friends' are just about as pro-US when push comes to shove.
"There is a huge misconception that the WOT is a military war."
If it were not a military confrontation, it would not require troops and war-materiel.
Because the Iranians don't have a nuke ready yet.
They have no anthrax? No biological agents?
I hear all this talk about how easy it would be to sneak nasty stuff into the US through the ports.
Odd that all these logistics haven't been figured out by those who seek to do us harm.
Sure they are, but they've so far limited the attacks to non-violent means; buying-off politicians, and engaging in propaganda efforts, control tactics, and belligerent economic practices.
Call a waaaaambulance.
In fact, our military presence in Iraq will be modified due to domestic public opinion.
That is your poorly informed opinion. The fact that they provide us with a military port contradicts you.
The numerous assasination attempts on Mushareff contradicts you. The fact that we have missle equipped UAVs patrolling the tribal regions contradicts you. The fact that these missles are being utilized based on Pakastani intelligenge contradicts 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.