Interesting to see who's on which side of the Dubai deal...
Not sure how I feel about it yet... But is it ever good to have the UAE controlling more than they "need" to? "Need" is relative in that statement...
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
what the media (no shocker of course) fail to tell the audience is that their jobs are merely administrative and nothing major. Just to put in plain English. It's just so funny how liberals are now saying this is wrong. It's like we've seen them flipped sides in a one-freakin-week span. All of a sudden now liberals and RINOs care about national security!!!!!!!!! I can go to bed safer now.
We have dumbasses like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton consistently saying Arab Americans get treated like sh**, and one week later we are announcing a deal to sell ports to the UAE. Do you need salt for your foot Veep?
Who cares, I still say we need to drop 10 tons of the Danish cartoon leaflets over there. It's obvious these idiots get so peeved over the simplest thing that I wouldn't mind their self destruction.
For goodness sake man (addressing the author), be careful when you play with fire. Hillary et. al. are fully capable of turning around and putting Hamas in charge of all ports in the Middle East if you point out too much of their folly to the DNC political base. After all, votes are really more important than national security. How are they supposed to help save the country at all it they're not even in office?
I'm not too sure where I fall here either, primarily because I've been getting my information so far secondhand via the blogosphere and the radio. I have yet to sift through the noise and find out the facts. To me, the most important facts to know are:
1) What exactly is the role of the UAE company in administering these ports?
2) How will our government oversee the company's administration of the ports?
3) Why the secrecy?
I usually give GWB the benefit of the doubt when it comes to national security, so I think it was a deal necessary to maintain the use of our airbase in Dubai (Hannity's theory). The real important question, though, is that the vetting process ensures that 1) and 2) are adequately answered.
I will add...Marine General Pace (Joint Chiefs of Staff) utilizes foreign sources for success in various outlets, etc.
The military uses foreign resources almost all the time, I'm not saying simply voila allow UAE to do this, but something like this isn't really new.
oh, I think Bush is very "secretive" about this (although that also is nothing new. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. had numerous secret meetings with foreign dignitaries) probably because he's getting very sick and tired of the media putting him in a Catch 22 situation. I would be to the point of using the Teddy bully pulpit on these people
I mean, it's so obvious the media is doing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to target Bush. Where was the media when Clinton sold fighter jets to the UAE back in the late 90s? It was truly no big deal back then. The ports in this country..NONE of them are ran by Americans. They're ran by the good Chinese (Hong Kong, Taiwanese, etc.), Dutch, a few Europeans, and now the UAE.
They're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
There is a difference between Clinton's sale to the UAE and this one, and it's called 9/11. In a post 9/11 world, it might not be the smartest thing to allow access to operations/security procedures, etc. to a company from the UAE. I'm still not convinced that this is a good deal, based on the evidence I have, although it is still spotty. Again, though, I still will give GWB the benefit of the doubt.
even in a post 9/11 world to this day, many American operations are ran by foreigners (yes, including Muslim nations).
Which ones?
okay, maybe UAE is the first when it comes to port ops, but I know Holland, Colombia, etc. are critical in American ops (including customs, which deals a lot with security).
Bahrain and Qatar are very critical for American military ops too - providing security for various personnel locations.
We do live in a post-9/11 world, but we still do "business" with many parts of that volatile region of the world.
Which personnel locations do Bahrain and Qatar provide security for? If it's in the United States, that may be a problem - hence the term "homeland" security. Otherwise, it's international, and it's not as big a deal.
I can see why Colombia would be involved in security, thanks to Tricky Dick declaring war on drugs way back when. Holland is a critical ally in NATO. I don't see anything wrong with working together with them (although you are probably in a better position to evaluate exactly how much of a role they take, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). The UAE may be an important ally in GWOT (we need that airbase in Dubai) but they may not have proven their reliability.
Screaming Islamophobia or racism is not the thing to do here (not accusing you of doing it, but others @ NRO and elsewhere have done it). This deal legitimately deserves the scrutiny it's getting. Like I said, though, I give GWB the benefit of the doubt - especially when Sen. Schumer and his ilk are obviously using this to score political points.
I'm not in a TOTAL 100% agreeance of simply giving duties elsewhere. My point all along is that it's been happening for quite some time now and I don't know why all of a sudden the media is raising a ruckus over this.
>>>Which personnel locations do Bahrain and Qatar provide security for? If it's in the United States, that may be a problem - hence the term "homeland" security.
Yes, not homeland. It's local overseas.
>>>The UAE may be an important ally in GWOT (we need that airbase in Dubai) but they may not have proven their reliability.
Unfortunately, we almost have to just take chances these days. Not saying simply dive into a tank of sharks, but we can't predict countries to be our allies or enemies in the future.
>>>>>Unfortunately, we almost have to just take chances these days. Not saying simply dive into a tank of sharks, but we can't predict countries to be our allies or enemies in the future.
Agreed. It sucks, but we need friends in the area. I wonder if we have the sort of policies towards them that "gently" push them towards more liberalization? If anything, free trade will help, so this deal helps in that regard - although we still need to be vigilant about our protection.
the benefit-of-the-doubt factor here is the mere realization that this company is gonna have a minimal role in overall affairs. Even CNN (shockingly) admitted that. Although it was a very quick one-liner, it was mentioned.
Post a Comment