Posted on 02/24/2006 12:20:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
FR Poll: After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?
Support
Oppose
Undecided
I'm sure there's more info to come and I'll welcome it. For now, I'm leaning strongly 'Yes'
It doesn't really seem to change much, so I am not opposed to this particular deal - plus, if we're trying to encourage Muslim countries to get with the program and express their rivalry in a commercial way rather than by trying to kill us all, it's a good thing.
However, I think much closer scrutiny should be given to any such thing in the future. If Congress wants to pass laws, it should do so with a genuine desire to make us safer and prevent future situations that may be more threatening. Trying to score points off Bush by whipping up hysteria about something that was not really his personal purview and actually is not a threat anyway protects nobody. But now that more and more Muslim countries are overt enemies, we should have a mechanism for scrutinizing any deal with a Muslim-dominated country - including France in about 15 years - more closely than deals with other countries.
I originally voted undecided. Changed over to FAVOR. Just heard Fri that UAE contributed more to Katrina relief than ALL other countries COMBINED- $100 million. This country is now our ally.
And here we have my wonderful representative making a complete fool out of herself because SHE doesn't have the facts.
"Dear Mr President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO but HELL NO!" Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) wrote to Bush in a one-sentence letter.
We're NOT selling ports. Now, if I know that, why doesn't she?
While that's a very compelling argument-and considering the endemic corruption of longshoreman's unions throughout the nation, it is undoubtedly a valid one-that does not mitigate Congress's dereliction of duty in fulfilling our government's primary mission, i.e. defending our borders and ensuring our protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
But even if you were to dismiss the exigent security threat-let's assume that no terrorist incidents will occur as a result of this transfer-this deal is still symptomatic of a degradation of our economy.
I'm all for free trade, but I don't believe free trade and completely eliminating our manufacturing base should be synonymous.
There are some things that are absolutely non-negotiable, and homeland security should be one of them.
Even if there are no terrorist attacks, we will still be relying upon a foreign-potentially hostile, if not now, then perhaps in the future-power to ensure that our economy runs smoothly.
Why should we be so utterly dependent upon Chinese buying T-bills, or Arabians being willing to take on enterprises that we have abandoned, or any foreign power-from any continent, regardless of their diplomatic relations with this country-in order to avert economic and political catastrophe?
Japan "dumping" steel, or the Canadians importing an excessive amount of lumber, or Pakistanis demanding concessions on textiles, or the preferential treatment we gave Cambodia for adhering to ILO standards...
None of these are life and death issues, and I'm sure that a wide range of opinion can be accommodated, but to say that we should rely upon the good will-or the overriding profit motive-of a nation that is, at best, ambivalent when it comes to international terrorism promulgated by Muslims, is the height of insanity, IMO.
It simply defies all logic.
Next comes the sale of 300,000 acres of BLM forest lands currently owned by our government.
You're aware we're talking about a takeover of operations at 21 (not the 6 previously reported) of our ports from Maine to Corpus Christi, TX?
After a few days of knee jerk fact finding am I worthy?
I believe that you are reporting an Associated Press report that has been labeled as false- do you have any source for your statement?
Harriet Miers supporters: Bush KNOWS what's he's doing. We have to TRUST our President on this one. Look at the facts, Miers has been a HUGE ally to conservatives. Besides, this is a DONE DEAL. The choice has been made ALREADY, accept it. You're only helping the Democrats by continuing to UNDERMINE him. Anyone who opposes Miers is a meanie sexist who thinks all women are unqualified for the Supreme Court and only men can do the job. For SHAME!
UAE takeover supporters: Bush KNOWS what's he's doing. We have to TRUST our President on this one. Look at the facts, the UAE has been a HUGE ally to America. Besides, this is a DONE DEAL. The choice has been made ALREADY, accept it. You're only helping the Democrats by continuing to UNDERMINE him. Anyone who opposes Dubai is a meanie racist who thinks all arabs are unqualified to run commerce and only caucasians can do the job. For SHAME!
Let's see. Elected official tally thus far (partial list):
" No Republicans on Capitol Hill have emerged to back President Bush on the pending sale of shipping operations at the six seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. All six of New Jersey's Republican congressmen are opposed to the deal"
OPPOSED
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
House Majority Leader John Boenier (R-OH)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Congerssman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Congressman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ)
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Congressman Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Congerssman Peter King (R-NY)
Congressman Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
SUPPORTS
Dubya
Jimmah "Let's sell the Panama canel to Red China" Carter
"It was very good for me, Bert. I'm so glad you're in bed with me on this one. As a good Christian man, I doubt I've EVER taken a position in America's interests in mah entire life. I've always lusted after Islam in mah heart. Handing over an American port to the Islamofacists is the most exciting deal for America since I sold the Panama Canal to Red China."
Oppose .
If this Dubai Corporation gives all subsidy from the
U.A.E. Goverment(the purchase of the ports in question is a leveraged buyout) - -
Then I will have fewer objections !
Long before Sept 11, I was of the mind that we needed, as a country, to do something dramatic to curb the ability of so many dictatorial islamic regimes to deflect the anger and unhappiness of their own populations toward the United States, instead of at their own corrupt governemnts.
After September 11th, I knew that we were faced with only two choices. We would have to (1) Kill a billion muslims, or (2) Try to fundemantally change them by changing their forms of government, and thus at least some of their ideology.
UAE is not what any of us would really consider to be a "freindly" nation, no matter what business they already do here in America, and no matter how much money they gave to Katrina victims. If this was Norway, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That said, we haven't decided that it's time to kill them all either. DPW is a business. I am a believer that international business ties make the world a safer place. After all, what business would want to destroy thier own cash cows, unless they are all truly insane?
We have to ask ourselves, do we, as a nation, beleive that ALL muslims are terrorists? If the answer is no, not all, then we should support this transaction. Otherwise, we are doing an injustice to the free market, and a majority of the UAE, who are most likely just people trying to make a buck. If the answer is "yes", then pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and spark up the nukes! Because, we're just wasting time and strategic advantage.
But, I don't believe that. I couldn't support Bush, or the idea that spreading democracy was at all a practical solution if I did.
Therefore, I fully support the idea of tighter security requirements on DPW, and more Homeland Security involvement at the ports. To do otherwise would be criminally negligent. But, the deal should happen.
No, I was only aware of six. I admit I have not read every single thing printed about this, but have never heard of 21 docks. After your post, I see that someone else says this higher number isn't accurate.
I would be interested in seeing the list, especially the Corpus facility and any other TX ones. I know they are already operating here at the Port of Houston, in some other form.
I'll change my vote from oppose to undecided.
support, always did. amazing net-literate people on FR so easily taken in by democrats and the media with 'selling our ports, selling port security' rhetoric.
Doesn't anyone know the democrats and the MSM don't give a fig about national security?
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.