Posted on 03/09/2006 9:02:17 AM PST by prairiebreeze
I can't type. "they're", "their", "there"...
What did Rush say?
the neocons should have learned by now there is no such thing as a real muslim ally.
The ignorance on display has gotten worse over the last year or so, imo. I don't even recommend this web site anymore.
Plus, they are just saying they won't buy american stuff. Isn't the opposition to the ports based on the assertion that we shouldn't let foreign countries by our stuff, like ports and things? The opponents should be HAPPY that UAE will stop "investing in america", because "investing" is another word for "buying parts of our companies and real estate".
How right you are. It's as if these critics imagine that no "Arabs" work at any port, airport, train station, etc. Do they imagine that DPW doesn't already know the procedures used in any major world port? This is a trustworthy company and our Congress is about to make a huge mistake, a mistake that will in the long run make us less secure.
Maybe Americans aren't as stupid as you think. Maybe they have decided for themselves that they don't like this deal. Maybe some of us don't like how the UAE treats Israel and Jews in general. Maybe you are wrong and others are right.
I'm sure Hillary's First Lady could smooth things over with the UAE.
Could it be that they need us?
The clowns you named are NOT in office.
I repeat - it is not just Democrats who oppose this deal.
Slight correction, The US government is telling a foreign country to stuff it. It is the country of UAE that was taking over terminal operations at dozen or so ports in question.
I have wondered why a country is allowed to complete against private enterprise? Seems kinda strange to me.
Have you said that to other people that have requested that certain people not post to them?
Which at this point, I seriously doubt.
Listening to people who think they are experts in the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics-and who think they know what the Arab "street" believes-and inevitably steer us into even bigger debacles than the ones we thought were so perplexing.
Backing the Muslim Brotherhood over Nasserist and pan-Arabist demagogues, because we felt at one point that the former posed a less potent threat.
Indirectly or directly bankrolling Islamist terror gangs like Hizb-e-Islami and the "services" office, which was in fact the progenitor of Al Qaeda, during the Afgan-Soviet war-instead of Ahmed Shah Masood and the Northern Alliance-because we thought they would be more successful in ousting the Soviets.
Believing that we could reason with the "good mullahs"-such as Ayatollah Khatami and Ayatollah Rafsanjani-while outwardly castigating the "bad mullahs," such as Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor, Ayatollah Khameini.
Deposing Mossedegh and reinstalling the Shah, even though it precipitated the Iranian revolution, which would result in a government a million times worse than Mossadegh.
The only consistent part of our foreign policy with regard to the Muslim world is our continued inability to realize how little we do know, and our unbroken track record of betting on the wrong horse.
Logical fallacy: guilt by association.
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.