You have commented 274 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dubai threatens to hit back - (No Free Lunch, Folks)
2006-03-09
Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.

“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.

Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.

A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.

“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”

Posted by:Captain America

#55  Frank G---By hot I mean angry, not erotically aroused by the Dubai Bruhaha. Got it? OK, still don't shell Shofn....LOL!
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK   2006-03-09 23:52  

#54  
It won't cost us a thing! The UAE and other non-Sowdie 'burgs know their bacon is fried if
Iran becomes a nuclear power.

They'll make some noises, and do some token payback,
but in the long run they'll play ball. This was part of their calculus I'm sure. They seem to be much better than us at playing these games.

All in all, this is a good thing. This should never have been on the table in the first place.

Posted by: Nana   2006-03-09 23:44  

#53   It's -15F and 15 kt wind here and I am still hot


Ima tellin Sjofn!
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-09 23:36  

#52  Ya wanta have a good fight in Congress? Then let us get a real energy plan in place and start to get us and our allies off the ME oil tit, or at least make a significant reduction in our ME oil consumption.

Nations work in their own self interest. The UAE needs our protection against Iran. We need their bases. Etc etc.

We are involved in this ME psycho sandbox because the world needs its oil. There is too much wealth going to psychopaths. I am sick to death of all this bullsh*t talk in Congress and the Executive about energy policy and no action. People want action and want to do their part in more efficient and independent use of energy. We need leadership and we need a plan and we need to impliment that energy plan. Then we won't have to deal so much with whether we trust these overpaid, lying, hypocritical, ME SOB dictatorships. It's -15F and 15 kt wind here and I am still hot.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK   2006-03-09 23:30  

#51  I firmly believe that USA shouldn't offend its Muslim allies.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-03-09 22:56  

#50  Well it's going to cost the House of Representatives come next voting cycle for one thing lotp.
Posted by: SPoD   2006-03-09 22:42  

#49  UAE buys American stuff because doing this buys them insurance against the Iranian menace across the Gulf and the Saudi and Iraqi menaces right next door. They could stop buying American stuff, and we could equally levy a financial and trade embargo against them for harboring al Qaeda. And they know it. I understand GWB has a soft spot for Muslims. But as far as I'm concerned, if Muslims can get all worked up about a few comic strips, we are allowed to get worked up about port security.

Note that I don't have a problem with the deal. But if Dubai decides to stick it to us, and GWB doesn't poke their eyes out, then it's clear that GWB was merely the lesser of two evils during the 2004 election. *China* can get its foreign adversaries to backtrack and start running back where they came from. If Uncle Sam cannot compel its "allies" to back off, then what kind of "allies" are they? Remember - the only reason the UAE exists as an independent entity is because of these United States.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-03-09 21:48  

#48  Cha_ching, Procter&Gamble is in large part owned by current and retired employees -- the retirement policy has accomplished by an annual donation of Company shares since, I believe, before World War II. The father of a schoolmate of mine had left P&G for other pastures before she and I were born; as of a few years ago he was still going to the annual retiree reunion weekend. So you needn't worry about P&G and it's ilk; not enough shares are available for a takeover to be achieved. ;-) (In this case, we do own P&G stock)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-09 21:47  

#47  I thoought of the same thing, Nimble Spemble.

Grolusing Omaviting2745, it is never wise to insult a lady who's been hitting that little black circle in the middle since she counted her age in single digits. Just sayin'...
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-09 21:18  

#46  Great threads at the Burg today.

My only comfort in this disaster is to recall that Bismarck said God looks out only for children, drunks and the United States. I hope he's still right. Somehow the wisdom of crowds must be at work and the American people must see something I don't. Maybe this is what we needed to do to let the world know we're getting serious. I can't figure it out but I pray it works out.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-09 21:06  

#45  Dubai backs out - hmmmm who would be the appropriate American firm? Halliburton Cartage™?



heee heeee
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-09 20:57  

#44  Lol.

You're retarded, GO.

HAND, lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 20:49  

#43  Boy, most people don't have a clue what this one will cost us.

...speaking of hysteria.
Posted by: Grolusing Omaviting2745   2006-03-09 20:47  

#42  Amen, I fear.

Politicians. *spit*
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 20:46  

#41  It's too late, CA. Schumer, Clinton and their ilk have won big with this one - and it was the total hysteria minus any facts from the right that handed it to them.

Boy, most people don't have a clue what this one will cost us.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-09 20:41  

#40  Boys and girls, if Dubai was so fucking treacherous, why and the hell would we be docking or ships there? Particularly after the Cole.

Maybe that's the idea. These (hack, spit) Congressvarmints and Senators are going to prove to themselves how tough they are by getting all the sailors and soldiers to resupply in Yemen instead of Dubai.
Posted by: Phil   2006-03-09 20:40  

#39  Reading further down article, "Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added."

Boys and girls, if Dubai was so fucking treacherous, why and the hell would we be docking or ships there? Particularly after the Cole.

Moreover, why would we be permitting our best and most honorable soldiers to rest there?

This whole issue is political pony games, and if I see that greasy Schumer smile any more broadly over it, I'll gag.



Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-09 20:37  

#38  But hey - it feels good to flip Dubai the bird, no?

There's always Doha.
Posted by: Grolusing Omaviting2745   2006-03-09 20:28  

#37  Crusader --- Hmmm.

I disagree with you because the political whores decided which battle to add to our list and, more importantly, when. None of the political game afoot was about security, it was purely political posturing and pandering.

Had the politicians educated America as they should've done, do you recognize we should have chosen to put this aside, since the "issue" was totally fucking bogus to begin with, and use our arrangements with the UAE as long as they served our interests?

If you are aware of all of the benefits we enjoy from the arrangements, and that there was no legitimate change to our security with the DPW deal, then you should be damning the entire lot of political asstard whores who've turned this tiny bit of nothing into a shitfest.

Who has been harmed by it?

If anyone, it's us - and us alone. I hope that they continue with the other arrangements we had, which our military highly values. But that isn't the pure clean equation it was before this flap arose... remember Muzzy First™? Now we have put that on the table.

This has already hit the Saudi papers in editorial form. Where do you think it goes from here?
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 20:22  

#36  Today, they have all the oil they need and we have little. Tomorrow, we will have oil made from corn, and they will have no corn.
But, we are still all people of the same world. and for some of us to act as if we are anointed by Allan to rule all others, is to buy no corn.
Bullets will change all this long before the oil from corn process does.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-03-09 20:19  

#35  ed and .com are right it is not turning into a war against terror. It is turning into a war against muzzies. We see on MSM every extremist muslim there is and people don't give a shit about good muzzy or bad muzzy they are beginning to want them gone.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-03-09 20:18  

#34  no big deal

That, to put it mildly, underestimates the relative weakness of the dollar if petro money is withdrawn in large amounts quickly, while we have so much debt outstanding.

Sure, we can monetarize that debt. It's called 'major inflation' and has long and lasting consequences for our national wealth and our kids.

But hey - it feels good to flip Dubai the bird, no?
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-09 20:17  

#33  "Oh, but we expect to continue buying your oil, docking and re-supplying our ships in your ports, and mocking your religion. Thank you and have a nice day."

Its no different than the position THEY take with us at every turn. They sell to us when its in THEIR interests to do so, they allow use of "their" ports when its in THEIR interests to do so. And they avert their eyes when folks from their own country or from their neighbors do something that harms us or our interests. They are not our "friends" in that their death-cult religion prevents them from ever truly viewing us that way.

Today they got screwed. Big deal. We were never "lovers" to begin with--it was (and will continue to be) a relationship that works when they believe it to be beneficial for them.
Posted by: Crusader   2006-03-09 20:03  

#32  Phil - This strike me as a rather nuanced objection - a very Western objection.

We'll have an uphill battle no matter WHAT position we take. You do understand this, no?

They aren't upset by cartoons, lol, they're only a convenient (highly manipulated and enhanced) tool, a means toward the end of Islamic conquest. They get excited on cue. They disperse on cue. They are the sheeple of NMM infamy. They don't care what we do - it will be "wrong". Full stop.

When you disengage your Western mind and think like a Muzzy, you'll begin laughing. You won't win any propaganda war with symbols and nuanced arguments - or any other facet of Western logic.

You "win" a temporary arrangement when it's convenient for them to agree to one - and they realize you're the strong horse with a deadly kick - such as the web of deals we've had with the UAE up to today. As long as the equation is advantageous to them, or a win-win, they're there. When you kick them in the face, you'd better be ready with another kick, locked and loaded, cuz that is the only tool left to you.

I have zero respect for Islam - I view it precisely the same as Nazism. It is an opportunistic ideology of slavery, barbarism, hatred, and dominion.

ed has zeroed in on a workable plan of action. I like it, cuz it addresses the threats faced now and looks down the road to where we're going. That he has his eyes wide open and most are dead asleep is what impresses me most. He's got this puppy nailed.

The only system that makes sense, assuming human progress is your goal, is embodied in the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We got it as right as has ever been achieved. Period. I don't apologize to anyone who's offended or takes issue with this view. Fuck 'em.

The real issue seems to be how BEST to fuck 'em. IMHO.

But you can keep thinking Western - I'm not offended, lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 19:50  

#31  The "rest of the Muslim world" spends as much time lying to its citizenry about the "shaytan America" as they do pretending to be our buddies. Until they're ready to deal with us honestly, what does one trashed deal in regard to ports really matter?

"Honestly"? How honest was our deal with them?

"Yes, we have no problem with foreigners like the Brits running our ports. Oh, you're Muslim, you say? Well now, let me run that deal past some grand-standing, bloviating gasbags in Congress first! They don't like doing business with your type--especially when they can score cheap political points at your expense.

"Oh, but we expect to continue buying your oil, docking and re-supplying our ships in your ports, and mocking your religion. Thank you and have a nice day."
Posted by: Dar   2006-03-09 19:43  

#30  You know, .com, we're going to have an uphill battle if we're always telling our friends that they're _bad_ Moslems and our enemies that they're _good_ Moslems. A proper propagandist would turn things around.

We've got to stop respecting the implicit moral authority of our enemies.
Posted by: Phil   2006-03-09 19:20  

#29  Then, according to their most respected scholars, they are not good Muzzies. The fact that they all agree, at least I have never seen a single case where this is in dispute, that the Haddiths trump the Suras is where I think the rub actually lies. That and the myth that it is the verbatim Word of God and is, thus, unchangable, unreformable. ;-)

This is very much like the Kurds. They are "lousy Muzzies" - because they are reasonable, rational, industrious, trustworthy, and *gasp* peaceful when not directly threatened.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 18:48  

#28  Do you really think how we treat the UAE is not going to have any repercussions in the rest of the Muslim world?


*laughs* Come on! The "rest of the Muslim world" spends as much time lying to its citizenry about the "shaytan America" as they do pretending to be our buddies. Until they're ready to deal with us honestly, what does one trashed deal in regard to ports really matter?
Posted by: Crusader   2006-03-09 18:46  

#27  Islam, at the level of Muzzy First™,

and that's the rub, isn't it? Because there are Muslims I know in the service who are loyal to this country and its values.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-09 18:41  

#26  lotp - Islam, at the level of Muzzy First™, has to be ended - utterly. No more taqiya. No more using our institutions and civility against us. No changes to suit Islam. Shoot the camel's nose off, once and for all.

American First™.

And no apology for it.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 18:40  

#25  Very very well said. I'm there.

Destabilizing them, sans nation-building, hits the sweet spot. Iraq and Afghanistan will be invaluable for doing it, but I do not want to repeat the experience of Iraq, ever again.

I subscribe to the build a bad thing and we'll break it school of foreign policy. And they can rebuild it themselves. If they don't get it right, break it again. We know that the nation-building thing doesn't work worth warm spit with Arabs - Arab Logic refuses rationality. Now we find out if they're even trainable.

Excellent post, sir. :-)
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 18:36  

#24  especially as long as there are several million of them working along side us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And as American citizens, in our armed forces.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-09 18:30  

#23  I don't advocate classical isolationism .com. I have no problems with relations with most of latin America, Asia, Europe (pre-caliphate), non-islamic Africa. I advocate isolating ourselves from islam and securing the homefront and in the meantime causing as much internal mayhem as possible in islamic lands. Then we can go forth and place the fear of (insert your favorite diety here) into the Mohammed worshippers. The Mohammedians tenet is to kill, convert or enslave the rest us. I advocate turning the tables and do to them, before they do to us.

We have a huge weakness in thinking and treating others as our equals. That is a fatal weakness that a supremist islam is well tuned to exploit both from the outside and within. it's already too late for uch of western Europe. We, in it's early stage, have already seen this in the huge spending for homeland defence and security, Saudis buying government leaders, government infiltration to sell off Boston land for a song to build the largest US mosque, islamic groups dissemblimg, deflecting and outright lying to weaken our resolve, feeding false information and advocating war to benefit one side (Chalabi and the Shiites).

The cost to engage the islamic lands is costing the US hundreds of billions a year. Cut that off and use the wealth to strength and prepare ourselves.
Posted by: ed   2006-03-09 18:29  

#22  Re #13:
You're right. And we've all seen what Muslim or Arab anger is capable of. Run to the hills! Hide!

Yes--it's been capable of killing innocent people on numerous airliners, several cruiseships, and a couple of grand buildings that used to crown the New York City skyline. Not to mention it's responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and -women in Beirut, on the USS Cole, in Mogadishu, the Pentagon, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I, for one, am damn sick of it. But I'm not ready to cast every single one of the billion-plus Muslims as evil--especially as long as there are several million of them working along side us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We HAVE to work with Muslims--and this slap-in-the-face Congress just gave Dubai has just set back our relationship by years.

Business is business. Who is UAE's protector in the region? Who guarantees the cash keeps flowing? Who will give them aid if Binny's thugs decide to disrupt things? You make it sound like the USA is UAE's bitch. Ever hear of symbiotic relationships?

Good God--do you really think the USA is the only alternative these people have? Do you really think how we treat the UAE is not going to have any repercussions in the rest of the Muslim world?

Yes, I have heard of a symbiotic relationship. Have you heard of an atlas? Would you care to look at the proximity of the UAE and the rest of the Muslim world to China, Russia, and India? Do you think for a moment any of them wouldn't be more than happy to take our place as Dubai's best buddy, trading partner, and protector? Can you see how much easier and cheaper it would be for them to secure trade routes in what is practically their own backyards, while we have a logistical trail extending over two oceans?

Bush came out on top, which is good, and used you for the tool that you are.

WTF?! What does Bush care about coming out "on top"?! He's done campaigning for re-election! Do you think maybe he realizes that alienating our few Islamic allies in the region is not a viable long-term strategy if we ever want to see our troops come home victorious and safe? What message have we just sent to the fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq we're trying to build? That we think they're lepers?
Posted by: Dar   2006-03-09 18:20  

#21  ed - Oops, except for that Buchanan thingy you stuck in there. Isolationism is sooo WW-II. This world ain't that world. Period.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 17:59  

#20  LOL, NS.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 17:57  

#19  These are basically the same jerks who ran for student council in jr high, just older, fatter, and greedier.

I told my children this the whole time they were growing up. By Jr. year in high school they finally realized I was correct. When they admitted this they had very worried expressions on their faces. Then I explained that the kids on student council were to the guys in Congress as the kids on the football team were to the NFL. That cost them their last meal.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-09 17:54  

#18  Advocating a variant of Fry US Up, ed?

You said it better, methinks.
Posted by: .com   2006-03-09 17:51  

#17  No one in recorded memory has ever managed to underestimate the sagacity of our political class. Bunch of stupid f**ks, one worse than the other. These are basically the same jerks who ran for student council in jr high, just older, fatter, and greedier.
Posted by: RWV   2006-03-09 17:48  

#16  I believe any backlash is a good thing. Contacts with muslims should be reduced to zero and any future meetings can be resolved on the battlefield. The Iraqis and Afghans, Kurds, Pakistanis, Dubaians et. al. will turn on us infidels the minute they perceive they can derive greater benefit by doing so. Actually even before that point (e.g. Saudis).

Unfortunately our leaders have got the sequencing of events backwards. First reduce our vulnerability to any energy cutoff. Seize the Persian Gulf fields and drive the those assholes out. If we don't have the stomach to do that, then reorient our defence budget and expoint our own reserves. Initiate a crash program to exploit drilling, shale oil and coal gasification plants, mass build thermal N-plants. Approve all viable projects and guarantee a profit. Even the low yield wind and solar to bring the greenies on board, but make the granola crowd pay the full cost for them with long term power subscriptions. It will be much cheaper than what we are currently paying. That's not counting the 100% surcharge we pay, even in "peace time", on middle east oil imports though military expenditures to guarantee worldwide access.

We don't need to spend our dollars and lives in the middle east. For instance, just what has been spent since Sept 11 waging welfare-as-warfare would have funded enough mass produced N-plants to substitute all foreign oil, including Canadian and Mexican. Then we have the option to go battery, hydrogen, synfuels or any other route.

Deport all who wish to remain muslims and let them fight it out amonst themselves for who gets to sit on the calipate throne. We will also save many billions going to internal security. Limit ourselves to selling our outdated weapons and cheering all sides. Eventually, we are going to have to fight them, but I would rather fight them when they are much poorer, bloodied, and from a secure home base.
Posted by: ed   2006-03-09 17:47  

#15  Well said Dar!

Stirred up a few no-seeums looks like.
Posted by: 6   2006-03-09 17:20  

#14  Has anybody asked them to buy Proctor & Gamble ....instead of the ports deal .....?? Let's take charge of our own entry points.
Posted by: Cha_Ching2805   2006-03-09 17:18  

#13  Dar: Angered one of our best--no, not perfect, but certainly one of the best--allies in the Muslim world

You're right. And we've all seen what Muslim or Arab anger is capable of. Run to the hills! Hide!

Dar: Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us

Like they care if you trust them or not. Business is business. Who is UAE's protector in the region? Who guarantees the cash keeps flowing? Who will give them aid if Binny's thugs decide to disrupt things? You make it sound like the USA is UAE's bitch. Ever hear of symbiotic relationships?

Dar: Risked financial backlash against Boeing and several other large American industries

Keyword: risked.

Dar: Likely curtailed further easy access to the UAE's oil reserves--as I recall, the 3rd-largest known reserves on the planet

And that's probably a good thing in the long run.

Dar: Brilliant move! We should all be proud.

Actually it is. Bush came out on top, which is good, and used you for the tool that you are.
Posted by: Thrack Ebbeting6306   2006-03-09 17:09  

#12  Without significant reform to the underlying teachings of Islam, can we ever say that we have "allies" in the Muslim world to begin with?

How about, no?
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-09 17:01  

#11  Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us.


In the long run, will we notice the difference? Even our "best" allies in the Muslim world are hostile to Israel, allow and/or encourage their media to bombard their citizens with anti-American propoganda, etc. Without significant reform to the underlying teachings of Islam, can we ever say that we have "allies" in the Muslim world to begin with?
Posted by: Crusader   2006-03-09 16:57  

#10  Dubai remains with us on the Iranian issue. After all, there's no where else to go.
I find it embarrassing, however for the Congress to act as they have, rather than debate the issue and write realistic laws controlling the ports. Instead, we got a feeding frenzy. Disgrace !
Posted by: wxjames   2006-03-09 16:53  

#9  It was smart of Bush to okay the deal -- non-extremist friends in that part of the world are really important. Especially with the Iran thing heating up.
Posted by: ex-lib   2006-03-09 16:48  

#8  This short-sighted paranoid witch hunt has accomplished several things:
  • Given both Republican and Democrat Congress members short-term poll boosts
  • Angered one of our best--no, not perfect, but certainly one of the best--allies in the Muslim world
  • Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us
  • Risked financial backlash against Boeing and several other large American industries
  • Likely curtailed further easy access to the UAE's oil reserves--as I recall, the 3rd-largest known reserves on the planet

    Brilliant move! We should all be proud.
  • Posted by: Dar   2006-03-09 16:47  

    #7  "Muslims. Why do they hate us?"

    I believe we are fightin and dying in Iraq and Afganistan protecting Muslims. Shouldn't we agree that there are good ones and bad ones?

    Or, are we experiencing generalized paranoia?

    Me thinks so
    Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-09 16:39  

    #6  Don't look now, there's someone behind you will a large curved knife. Boo!
    Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-09 16:36  

    #5  Captain said: excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property

    True. "9/11 is a myth. Never happened."
    ...or...
    "Muslims. Why do they hate us?"
    Posted by: Ulereque Ebbaiper7291   2006-03-09 16:35  

    #4  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
    Posted by: Gromoter Snearong7571   2006-03-09 16:34  

    #3  Paranoia and pay back is a bitch.

    Paranoia = the term paranoia is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property and is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories.
    Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-09 16:30  

    #2  That's right. Now the price must be paid. And all you had to do is bend over.

    Bin Laden is smiling :-)
    Posted by: Wholurt Cruter5525   2006-03-09 16:25  

    #1  That's no big deal. We can get along without anybody.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-09 16:22  

    00:00