Middle Eastern Country to run U.S. Ports

If all arabs are the same, then why differentiate between a arab country and a business owned by that arab country?

 

For the record though, I think the donation stinks. It was made weeks before the ports deal was finalized, but I find it a bit concerning. Of course it is a huge gesture but... For UAE to give the money *months* after Katrina and mere weeks before their Dubai Ports deal was finalized........

 

I am correcting myself. Further reading shows their donation was made electronically on Sept 21.

Link

 

having given this isse careful consideration over the last few days, i am leaning towards agreeing with our friends sabanfan and bush that this isnt a big deal. it certainly sounds terrible, but i dont know that it really means much of anything.

 

The fact that they gave the money to FEMA and the black hole that is the NOLA school system really makes me question their judgment.

 

They also gave $1 million+ to the Bush library at aTm a few years back. (The one time I'd like to see what kind of dirt Rex and his loons can dig up, and I guess he's off drawing cartoons for his website.)

Beside the six ports the UAE would operate, they would also control stevedoring operations at several other locations, including Beaumont and Corpus Christi, TX. According to what I saw on the news last night, over 1/3 of the US military equipment travels through these locations. Another reason this is a bad move.

I believe this whole scenario is bad because a particular country has not declared war on the US, a faction of muslims have declared war on the US. And this faction has infiltrated practically every country in the world, including the US. The enemy cannot be defined by geographic borders (although most are still found in the arab world). Yes, we need to build solid relations with Arab governments that show sympathy to the US....let me re-phrase that...governments that value US dollars over their religious beliefs. These relationships need to be kept at arms length until arabs stop commiting acts of terror against the western world. If the UAE, the Saudis etc. don't like it, tough. We'll lighten our stance when they gain control of their citizens.

 

CC's trigger finger is itchy on the subject of Bush. I said that it may not have been a wise move politically. On the issue of National security, I simply stated that I am comfortable with the decision. That's how I feel. If others are nervous, that's their perogative. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.

 

Bilateral security arrangements are just opportunities waiting to be exploited. Issues of trade and political power seem much more important than national security to our "leadership". Be it Toshiba selling the milling equipment and technologies designed for our naval screws, or dropping our "racist" prosecution of Wen Ho Lee, national security makes a great headline, but is seemingly third or fourth down the list of importance.

Our "leaders" must stop living this fantasy of needing to be well liked and living off our reputation, rather than simply living up to our values as a country. Our current path is the one of Willie Loman, the one where we just end up hanging ourselves.

 

The same could be said about Great Britain and Canada.