Posted on 03/16/2006 5:02:26 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
In retrospect, America went collectively insane over the possibility that a company owned by Dubai's government would operate several of our ports.
Rarely has reason been so routed by pure emotion. Dubai is a Westernizing state that long ago left the eighth century and accepts the modern world of globalized commerce and finance. This member of the United Arab Emirates has -- especially after Sept. 11 -- passed on intelligence, hosted our fleet and provided a foothold in the gulf near Iraq and Iran.
For a country that is addicted to imported petroleum, hooked on cheap imported goods and eager for illegal-alien labor, and which has hundreds of military bases abroad, it is a little late to worry about dangerous foreign ganglia.
. . . the Dubai port deal shows how at odds are American perceptions and reality. For the past half-century, we have been living in a complex interconnected world of mutual reliance.
Soon we will import more food than we grow. We already burn more oil than we pump. For years we have bought more than we export, and we borrow far more than we lend. To justify these precarious dependencies, America assures foreign business leaders, investors and lenders that our markets remain open and immune to the distortions of xenophobia and provincialism.
Americans may not like that devil's bargain, but it was made long ago and, for better or worse, we are long past being an agrarian republic.
The resulting singular affluence of the American consumer derives from just these trade-offs in our autonomy -- and the trust we receive from those who loan and sell us things we cannot immediately pay for. So rejecting the Dubai port deal is not only hypocritical, but in the end dumb.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
LOL
There was a lot of unseemly emotion expressed on this board by the overwrought.
LOL -- Thanks. I just pinged you to that thread!
Good grief! I missed your ping to this one!
Let me read this NOW!
Folks talk about needing foreign investment. I'll take the heat, and others will as well for our view. But I am looking at why we need that foreign investment. Could this be a case of the means justifies the end??
From each according to his abilities . . .
I'm with you in favoring neither. Bubba gave away the house to the Chi Coms during his 2 affairs...I mean terms so that today they use our own technology against us. Let's also not forget Peanut Boy who gave away the Panama Canal which the Chi Coms now control.
So are you saying that you lied about security concerns because you oppose any foreign investments in principle?
It wasn't a case of "needing" any foreign investment anyway. This was a service business that previously was operated by the Brits -- other "foreignors". If new owners could run it more efficiently, more power to them. But it wasn't a case of some U.S. business being sold off.
Personally, I think the better argument is that rejection of htis deal has made us less secure, which is the biggest reason I didn't want to see it killed.
To waste on some pathetic loser who thinks Lindbergh was a Nazi???
LOL! No, I don't have that much time on my hands...
So if you had been Governor of South Carolina several years back you would have tod BMW not to build an assembly plant there?
You do realize this isn't Bolivia, don't you?
If this makes us less secure in a former Marine's eye, then I need to remind the former Marine that I learned all I needed to know about arabs on 9/11. I still do not like the Brits owning the ports, but their citizens in general, don't want to see our destruction. Muslims do. And while there are most upper end Arabs who want a serious business relationship with us, not far below them are the arabs who want us destroyed.
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.