Article

2006-02-28 Arabia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2006-02-28 15:30|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Surprise meter?

Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-28 15:39|| 2006-02-28 15:39|| Front Page Top

#2 -- Asked to identify their "most admired" world leaders, 18% of UAE citizens chose Osama bin Laden. "No one" finished first with 22%.

-- When asked how they viewed themselves, only 19% said they identified first and foremost as citizens of the United Arab Emirates, while 66% said they saw themselves as "Muslims" first.

"Muslims first". Someone try and tell me that Islamic loyalty doesn't override the deepest of political or contractual commitments. Toss in admiration for Osama bin Laden, even at a mere 18%, and this is a recipe for disaster.

Now, add on the lack of requirement for UAE to keep a full set of books stateside. I can see it now:

"We don't know how that shipping container with the nuclear weapon got into port."

"Um ... no, our off-loading books don't show exactly who trans-shipped it or its point of origin. That information is back at the main office."

"Gee ... we'd love to help you trace it, but there's been a fire at the main office back in Abu Dhabi, so we don't think we'll ever be able to find out."

Think it won't happen?

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-28 21:13|| 2006-02-28 21:13|| Front Page Top

#3 From PowerLine:

Jayson Ahern, Assistant Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection:

AHERN: Sure, I think a couple of things. First in the last couple of weeks with the Dubai Ports World transaction here in the United States, one of the things I've seen consistently misrepresented is that this foreign company was going to come in and take over ports and port security. First off, that's not true. Port authorities are still run by state and local and county governments consistent with standards set forth by the United States Coast Guard, and also the companies that would be involved with this transaction are actually purchasing another foreign company that actually runs or leases a terminal within that port. So I think that's one of the first distinctions is making sure that the public understands this is not a foreign company coming in and taking over the United States' ports or running a port or setting security standards. They're merely coming in to lease a terminal within that port, which is just one of the facilities that operates within a port.

It's so simple, even a fucking child can understand it.

Demagoguery is unbecoming.

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 21:38|| 2006-02-28 21:38|| Front Page Top

#4
Zenster, you are preaching to deaf ears and closed minds! Their argument is that the UAE won't be handling security.

THat isn't the issue for me. They, the UAE, does deserve the port management contract.

Posted by Vinkat Bala Subrumanian 2006-02-28 21:50|| 2006-02-28 21:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Interesting take from John Podhoretz...

AFTER THE PORT FIGHT: WIN FOR THE PHONIES

Login: 123456@gmail.com / 123456

Will there ever come a time when the company seeking American clearance to assume management of several major U.S. ports actually achieves its aim? After last week's political firestorm surrounding the company, which is called Dubai Ports World and is owned by the government of that Persian Gulf emirate, its directors clearly took the advice of the Bush administration and decided to institute a cooling-off period. It requested an additional 45-day review of the deal, clearly hoping that by late April, the whole business will be forgotten.
Over the past couple of days, reasonable pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have explained patiently that this is all a misunderstanding. Port security will not be damaged by the fact that a company owned by an Arab nation will be managing the flow of shipping goods in and out of New York and other cities. In fact, they have said convincingly, this is precisely the sort of deal we should be making with friendly Arab countries to reward their positive actions in the War on Terror.

That's all very nice. But does it matter?

No.

In the film version of "Breakfast at Tiffany's," someone says of the movie's heroine, "She's a phony. But she's a real phony. She honestly believes all this phony junk she believes in."

The issue of the ports is probably a phony, just like the Wise Men are saying. But if it's a phony issue, it's a "real phony." The overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose the deal honestly believe it's wrong, and they won't be talked out of it so quickly.

It is true that the American people aren't really the best judges of international contracts and the language in them. But they are the judges of American politicians, and when an issue emerges from the shadows of Official Washington and the people weigh in, the politicians begin to shake at the knees. As politicians should.

Now, whether Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Jon Corzine and others who have so relentlessly stoked the anti-deal fires are "real phonies" or just plain phony phonies is an issue best left for posterity to decide.

Hold on posterity just called me, and began ranting about how they are just "phony phonies," so I guess we won't have to wait for our answer.

Schumer and others simply and transparently invented, stoked and exploited this issue, and did so masterfully. Their behavior may be contemptible, especially if it has damaged America's capacity to make common cause with moderate Muslim states. But you can't help admiring their political skills.

They've done so well with it in fact, it's the first national-security issue Democrats have dominated since 9/11 that there's little chance they're going to let it go just because, hey, it might be better for the country.

As far as they're concerned, it will be far better for the country if they take control of the House and Senate in November so if our relations with Dubai have to be injured in pursuit of that cause, so be it.

It's unquestionably the case that if roles were reversed, Republicans on Capitol Hill would be doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to do exactly the same thing they're me-tooing Schumer & Co. in an effort to limit the damage the issue might do to them.

What this means is simple: There will be no ports deal. The delay is perfectly timed to allow the Democrats to raise it all anew in a couple of months, and if necessary to go toe-to-toe with George W. Bush should he hold firm on his determination to veto any congressional attempt to block the port deal.

A couple of months from now is a couple of months closer to the election. They'll just ride a second wave, and unless polls shift dramatically, the president will remain all alone out there.

There will be no ports deal. The wise men are wrong. The "phony phonies" have convinced the "real phonies," and there's no going back.

That's just fucking sad. When the Truth is slain, we all lose. Fucking partisan assholes and toolfools. Which are you, Zenster? One of the assholes or just a fucking tool?

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 21:51|| 2006-02-28 21:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Funny, VBS, a closed mind is precisely what I accuse you of having. Impervious to the facts and a steady Kool Aid IV drip. That's fucking sad, man. Same question to you, asshole or tool? Ain't no other choices, son.

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 21:55|| 2006-02-28 21:55|| Front Page Top

23:55 2b
23:46 Pappy
23:43 2b
23:35 2b
23:28 2b
23:25 2b
23:04 DMFD
23:04 Anonymoose
23:03 Alaska Paul
23:00 DMFD
22:56 DMFD
22:41 N guard
22:34 Listen To Dogs
22:27 Listen To Dogs
22:23 .com
22:23 mom
22:20 phil_b
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:11 Old Patriot
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:08 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:07 C-Low
22:05 .com
22:04 JosephMendiola