I don't think having foreign companies running our ports is a good thing in general, but the lefties have gone overboard on the issue-they have bent so far backwards, they can be easily charged with hypocrisy. For example:
- According to the left, Iraq was not a terrorist threat, and had nothing to do with Al Qaida ('cept for that Zarkawi guy, oops), but the UAE can't be trusted because they might be used by terrorists.
- According to the left, enemies such as Cuba should be "engaged" instead of isolated. But in this case, isolation is the prescription.
- According to the left, it is wrong to racially profile Arabs, so we have to strip-search Jewish grandmas at the airport--but the UAE is pre-judged to be a danger, and can't be trusted. And the left, who have never been strong on border security (strong borders are "racist" and "ethnocentric", suddenly want strong ports!
- If Bush had torpedoed the deal, and demanded that an American company got the job, there is a good chance that this is who would have won--can you imagine the outcry from the left, then?
Here are a few reasons why I think the UAE deal is a bad one:
- It is morally disgusting to me to support a country that promotes the spread of Sharia law. That's why I don't patronize Caribou Coffe, or shop at Loehmann's any more.
- I would rather that the business go to an American company, so more Americans can benefit from the profits.
- Infiltration of a UAE run port may be easier for Al Qaida operatives than infiltration of a British run port.
International relations is often a game of carrots and sticks. I suppose that Bush decided that in the case of places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE, the answer was to offer carrots and only hint at the sticks.
3 comments:
Wow! You're so uninformed, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
To your 1st point: Unlike Iraq, the UAE DID have something to do with 9/11. 2 of the hijackers were from the UAE, and money to support the hijackers originated from the UAE.
To your 2nd point: I don't know who is prejudging the UAE because they are Arabs, I however place judgment on a country that officially recognizes the Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan. And let's get this straight, this is not a UAE company that is taking over the ports, it's the UAE itself. This so called company is completely owned and operated by the UAE. One of the “members of the board” is a personal friend of Osama Bin Laden.
Your third point is just a supposition, which you are entitled to. It just doesn't prove anything.
I am no lefty, I voted for W twice, but you must have blinders on to think that this deal is a good idea. You are just running off at the mouth, without the slightest idea what you are talking about.
The government of the UAE has not (yet) been proven to have been involved in 9/11. The hijackers were citizens, yes. The money came from banks located in UAE, yes. But all kinds of dirty money goes through all kinds of banks. As far as I have heard, UAE is much cleaner than Iraq.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also recognized the Taliban--and the US has chosen to do business with both of those countries on many fronts. I'm not happy about that, but that is that way it is. That the UAE recognized the Taliban is not pleasant, but I am not sure it means much either.
My third point was mostly for fun, and not an argument in itself. I'm not debating according to the rules of evidence here, I'm firing off snappy commentary, 'cause its my blog.
Thanks for reading, and writing.
They're not taking over a port, they're taking over the management of a dock in a port. (just getting that one out there).
http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/091037.asp
As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)
The argument from Democrats now that “foreigners” shouldn’t be operating U.S. ports is either protectionism, xenophobia, or both. And it is at least a decade late.
All over the weekend, Democrats continued to fundamentally misrepresent what the deal entails.
Post a Comment