Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

Dumb analogy. Here's a better one: transport airlines owned by nations whos leaders have met with Osama Bin Laden should be restricted from buying American airports.

Although Congress has killed a deal to lease the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station to a Chinese shipping company, local officials are still fighting to make other accommodations to keep the China Ocean Shipping Co. from leaving the harbor.

Port of Long Beach officials were officially stripped of their ability to lease the former Navy land to COSCO late last week, when congressional conferees submitted to Congress the 1998-1999 defense authorization bill. The legislation's final language effectively prohibits the Chinese company from leasing any part of the Long Beach Naval Station after it is converted into a cargo terminal. Officials said there is virtually no chance of amending the bill.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Kudos to e_brown and drewdad

Suppressed gag reflex for IronZionLion.

Poor marks for the Bush Administration.

Democrats like Hillary and Chuckie Schummer may or may not be bigots but they are certainly cynical opportunists. In some way, that they have flown by the issue of bigotry at mach speed is all the more disconcerting. Of course, here comes IronZionLion to spew the talking points (Which by the way, are shared by members of the Right) "It's not about bigotry, it's about security!"

Pardon me but, bullshite!

There are numerous (and not all Jolly Englishman) foreign interests that have operational control over our ports. Suddenly Arabs want to join the game and a focus of Homeland security that has been wantonly ignored by Congress (our ports) shoves its way to the front burner.

You're right. 80% of the hubub surrounding this is just thinly vieled racism - people like cjhsa oppose the deal simply because it involved an Arab country.

Oh I see, people like cjhsa are racists while people like IronZionLion are patriots.

However, this shouldn't distract us from the fact that there are real reasons to oppose this deal. The UAE government was one of three governments to recognize the Taliban. The UAE government has personally met with Osma Bin Laden. The UAE government has links to Al-Qaida. The UAE government allows chairites to funnel money to terrorists and madrasas in Pakistan.

There are real reasons to question this deal. Stupidly, the Bush Administration refused to accept this. Until these questions are answered there is no real reason to oppose the deal.

The UAE was...Past tense. Do you know that these concerns survive into the present tense? I doubt it. It is naive to argue that on the geo-political front, that virtuous acts are their own reward. If the UAE (and more particularly Dubai) have mended their ways it is more because of self-interest than national morality. If there is nothing to be gained by mending their ways than the high regard of some Americans, the mend is sure to fail. If Islamic nations buck Islamo-Fascism sentiments in their populations and all they get is a T-Shirt that says "W Loves Us!" their resistance won't last long.

You'd have us sell our ports to this country? Yet, you're all for war against Iraq based partly on it's hilarious tenuous connections to terrorism?

That's completely ridiculous.

You are incoherent.

First of all, the financial transaction is between a British company and a public/private (think Amtrac) company in Dubai. US involvement is limited to approving the deal; not a dime will be recognized.

Secondly the ports are not owned by the British who are seeking to do the deal with Dubai. The deal is for the operational management of a handful of American ports. Other American ports are run by the Chinese and Singaporians. It's a Global Economy -- get wise!

Finally, there is absolutely no connection between this issue and the war in Iraq other than that Arabs are involved.

Quote:

There is no question that the UAE has significantly changed their ways since 9/11. Perhaps they haven't changed enough, but they have made significant changes. It's silly to expect an Arab country to do a 180 for us, but if they do a 120, we have to reward them.

"Hey, the were best buds with Osma Bin Laden untill it became political suicide to support him, and yeah, they supported the Taliban, but hey, they've changed."

Hilarious.

You find the oddest things funny.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the UAE is now some sort of bastion of virtue. They act out of self-interest. Obviously their self-interest was advanced (at least in their minds) through their prior positions. We have been successful, thus far, in realigning their self-interest with our own. If their changes do not bear fruit, they will not maintain them.

If and when the UAE has a significant interest in American ports, it is highly unlikely that they will do or allow to happen anything that might hurt that interest.

Not every Arab in the world is an Islamic fanatic. Some of them have just as much avarice and venality as any American Fat-Cat Capitalist, and they are not about to sacrifice their greater good for that of Allah.

Quote:

Bush is absolutely right. This hubhub is sending a horrible message to moderate Arab nations. Unfortunately, it was the arrogance of his Administration (flowing from him) that enabled this crisis to develop. It's politically a good thing to allow this deal to go through. If it really doesn't present a security threat (and I don't believe it does), then there is no reason why the Administration could not have short-stopped this furor.

Both Bush and Clinton ignored the role countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia play in terrorism because a) they're leaders were co-operative, b) we need thier oil. That was a huge mistake. Blocking the ports deal will send a clear message that we are not going to tolerate this type of double-faced dealings.

Lumping Saudi Arabia and the UAE together reveals your blunt regard for the region. You would hardly lump the UK and Greece together, yet both are European and, nominally, Christian nations.

You refuse to acknowledge that the UAE has turned from blatant double-faced dealings. If they haven't then I'm all for depriving them of this deal. If as the Administration contends, they have, then punishing them because of past transgressions or because they are Towel-Heads, is self-defeating.

Quote:

Having given Bush his share of the blame, I can't leave out the Democrats and their syncophants (e.g. IronZionLion).

I know this may shock you and others in the cesspool of partisan bickering that is A2K, but I'm not a Democrat. The Democrats are only slitghtly less retarded than thier Republican counterparts, as far as I'm concerned.

Pardon me. I sometimes tend to group Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists together. I acknowledge you as a Leftist who, despite your protestations, is far more likely to fall in step with the Left-wing of the Democratic Party than not.

Lumping Saudi Arabia and the UAE together reveals your blunt regard for the region. You would hardly lump the UK and Greece together, yet both are European and, nominally, Christian nations.

Quote:

Lumping Saudi Arabia and the UAE together reveals your blunt regard for the region. You would hardly lump the UK and Greece together, yet both are European and, nominally, Christian nations.

There is considerably more in common between SA and the UAE, to compare them to the UK/Greece is just dishonest. The autocratic emirs and princes of both countries have unrepentant distain for anything Western unless some advantage, monetary or otherwise, can be gained. To ignore the former, and formal, relationship between the leaders of the UAE and radical Islam is to invite disaster, to misunderstand the Wahhabi theology of the House of Saud as something akin to the skim milk version of Christianity practiced in England is obtuse ignorance.

The real irony here is that both the governments of the UAE and Saudi Arabia are now under attack from the same radical Islamists they once embraced. The Dubai company will be more of a target by Al Queda now that they will be managing ports in the US and so will the officials back home in Sharjah.

Joe (good luck to them)Nation

Well, one of the rare times, I agree with Finn, on the basis of what he says.

I'm not the biggest friend of this globalism at all - but times have changed and we have to live and arrange with that. (The German car manufactorour was sold to the US in the early 20's of 20th century already.)

His description about what the deal is seems to cover that what I believe it's all about.

As said, I'm not a big fan of globalism, and obviously the USA is now 'feeling' one of the many negative effects themselves.

One of the rare times you are on the right side of an argument.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

One of the rare times you are on the right side of an argument.

That's something different, and I sincerely doubt your statement :wink:

We have allies across the world. If you think that they are our allies because we deeply share common values, you are, at best, naive. Accommodation of self-interest is what forms alliances, and no alliance is absolute. Politics is a process of quid-pro-quo. We can threaten nations to do what we want, but that only goes so far. To obtain a lasting alignment of interests we must promise them something.

Pakistan went from, essentially, an enemy to an ally. Why was that? It was a combination of threats and promises. Should we implicitly trust Pakistan? Absolutely not. Should we make it worth their while to help us hunt down al-Qaeda operatives and leaders? Absolutely yes.