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 ...
Good thing you weren't in charge then.
So you prefer FDR to a true conservative?
I preferred winning WWII (whether with FDR or any other liberal), period. I suspect any conservative 'acceptable" to you would have lost us that battle, we'd all be speaking German, and then this debate would be moot.
Well TEDDY Roosevelt would have been acceptable to me.
Do you think HE would have lost us that battle???
"Don't hit at all if you can help it;
don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it;
but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."
~ Theodore Roosevelt, New York City, February 17, 1899
Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.
-- Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star (April 27, 1918).
I don't think Teddy would have refused Stalin as an ally, so no, I don't think he would have lost WWII either. You, I'm not so sure about.
Agreed, and another issue the MSM keeps running with is this was the "President's" deal. Clueless!
Are you catching all of this?
You look pretty good to be that old.
Thanks. It's the high-fiber diet that helps keep me regular.
So much fiber it makes your eyes brown.
Charles Lindbergh speaking at an American First Rally
Medal presented by Goering to Lindhberg
Goering (right) presents Lindbergh with a sword
That guess is about as good as your other stated beliefs on this page.
I call them the 'R' and 'D' party to save space and typing. Repeating 'Republican' over and over again just seemed like a waste, so I abbreviated. I'm surprised you thought of that as "revisionist doublespeak" . . . then again, you still refer to the 'control' of the ports, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand such things.
Now I have to describe myself as an America First! nationalist conservative.
Light on the 'conservative', obviously. Unless you can explain how it's 'conservative' for Congress to move to block a private business deal like this, in the case where there's no evidence of risk to our security.
Killing this deal was a clearly 'liberal' policy. The supporters of killing it have gone on and on here on FR about how this is just "greed" by trying to save a few bucks by "selling out to the arab muslims".
The policy was initiated by Schumer and Hilly.
"Conservative", you say? What then do you mean by that, if you supported such an expansion of govt power as this?
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.