Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 03/01/2006 View Tue 02/28/2006 View Mon 02/27/2006 View Sun 02/26/2006 View Sat 02/25/2006 View Fri 02/24/2006 View Thu 02/23/2006
1
2006-03-01 Home Front: Politix
Question for pro-UAE port control voters - What about Iranian investments in Dubai?
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 Zenster 2006-03-01 12:31|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [582 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Do the supporters of this handoff still maintain that it is not fraught with loopholes and the potential for vital breaches in our nation's security?

Yes, mainly because it has not been demonstrated that there are any.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-01 15:12||   2006-03-01 15:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Howl at the moon, Zenster.
Posted by .com 2006-03-01 15:51||   2006-03-01 15:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Repeat after me: the Iranian people are largely pro-American, pro-Western. It's the moolahs that need a bitch slapping.

I suggest reading some of Michael Ledeen's written work, take a valium, and call your physican in the morning.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-01 17:03||   2006-03-01 17:03|| Front Page Top

#4 the Iranian people are largely pro-American, pro-Western.

Oh my. Someone's still living in a bubble.

This "support Bush at all costs" is getting way out of hand. Are you still holding out hope that Bush will strike Iran, .com? Or has that hope dimmed a little?
Posted by Rafael 2006-03-01 17:31||   2006-03-01 17:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Lol, Raphael. Take your meds Qanuck - and lay off the local Kool Aid. I'll take Bush's word over yours any day. Y'know, you've got that contrarian thingy down pat, now. Don't change. You 'n VBS are in competition for RB Jester.
Posted by .com 2006-03-01 17:37||   2006-03-01 17:37|| Front Page Top

#6 I'll take Bush's word over yours any day.

A true believer, eh Yankee? Good. Don't change.

Y'know, you've got that contrarian thingy down pat, now.
True, if I see something I don't agree with, I usually speak out against it.

So seriously...you still hoping or what?
Posted by Rafael 2006-03-01 17:48||   2006-03-01 17:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Seriously?

Lol. Are you really this dense?

Of course - to both questions, yours and mine. Take another gulp, sonny.
Posted by .com 2006-03-01 17:57||   2006-03-01 17:57|| Front Page Top

#8 Rafael, excuse my ignorance - I don't have time to read every post. But from previous posts of yours that I have read, I take it that you are not from around here, are ya? If true, why the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Wouldn't you be better off focusing on your own government, where your opinion actually matters?
Posted by 2b 2006-03-01 19:17||   2006-03-01 19:17|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes, mainly because it has not been demonstrated that there are any.

So, I take it you don't regard the UAE not being required to keep a complete set of books in the United States to be a loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through? I do.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-01 19:44||   2006-03-01 19:44|| Front Page Top

#10 It's the moolahs that need a bitch slapping.

I agree totally. I would prefer that the mullahs all be taking the dirt nap as we type. Unfortunately, it is also the mullahs who have all the big bucks, the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, the desire to attack America with those nuclear weapons and the connections within the UAE to make it happen (if, indeed, it can happen).

Knowing what sort of irrational hatred the mullahs possess for America makes it just a little too close to home and I elect to err on the side of caution. If terrorism has taught us to do one thing, it is to err on the side of caution.

Why do you think you never see me whingeing about the Patriot Act or domestic spying? I'd rather internal enemies be pursued in some manner than to see them go unaddressed. This is the same policy I carry forward with respect to the ports.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-01 19:55||   2006-03-01 19:55|| Front Page Top

#11 I take it that you are not from around here, are ya? If true, why the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Wouldn't you be better off focusing on your own government, where your opinion actually matters?

Hey, excellent questions. Here are my honest answers: You see, as a Canadian, my well being is tied to your well being, assuming you are an American, of course. This is something most Canadians don't realize (and most Americans don't care about, but that's how it goes). We do not live in a vacuum. Evidence of that is the morning of 9-11, when downtown Toronto emptied rather quickly and business quite literally, stopped.

I do not have Bush Derangement Syndrome. I supported and continue to support Bush on most everything. I still support Bush on the Iraq war, even after all this missing-WMD fiasco, bad intelligence, or whatever. I was ecstatic when Bush got elected over Gore in 2000. I was upset when Bush senior lost to Clinton. And you can trace this support all the way back to Reagan. The reasons for this are documented on Rantburg, going back to well before .com's days here.

There's one thing that I hold way above my support for Bush, however, and that's intellectual honesty. If something doesn't calculate, then I say it outright. Even if it's not popular with the Rantburg crowd.

I'm sorry but this just happens to be one of Bush's brain farts. Not long after he announces that America should strive for independence from middle eastern oil, he does this (the ports deal). Is he expected to be taken seriously?

Even if - ignoring the security aspects - there's nothing wrong with this, what is so wrong with wanting ports/energy companies/whatever to remain in American hands?

What if, after answering Bush's call to develop an alternate energy source, this technology is also bought up by foreigners. Is this okay too? Please. Everything has its limits.

.com and I haven't been able to connect on things right from the start. There's a history there. But so what. I don't like following crowds anyway.
Posted by Rafael 2006-03-01 20:57||   2006-03-01 20:57|| Front Page Top

#12 "Following crowds" .... not good, I agree.
Posted by Visitor 2006-03-01 21:01||   2006-03-01 21:01|| Front Page Top

#13 What if ... what if ... what if people BUY OUR PRODUCTS?

Huh, what then?

And what if ... what if WE BUY THEIR COMPANIES.

Oh, lordy, what a mess the world would be in.

An', an', an' ... what if ...
Posted by Moon is Full 2006-03-01 21:10||   2006-03-01 21:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Yes it is easier to be an ass than to engage in constructive, even if heated, debate.

Glad to see someone else is also thinking about these things: Pace of protectionism quickens

And btw, use your regular name, don't be a coward!
Posted by Rafael 2006-03-01 21:38||   2006-03-01 21:38|| Front Page Top

#15 Now, now, now....

I assumed Howl at the Moon was related to

"Howl at the moon, Zenster."

and you did too.
Posted by Bobby 2006-03-01 21:46||   2006-03-01 21:46|| Front Page Top

#16 2b, if I recall correctly, Rafael was born in Czechoslovakia (which gave me a thrill -- the trailing daughters still sing "Kola, kola mlinsky" with a Brno accent), then at some point made his way west, after he'd lived there long enough to thoroughly loathe Communism. I do hope I haven't been thrilled in vain. ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-01 21:54||   2006-03-01 21:54|| Front Page Top

#17 fair enough. I was wondering, that's all.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-01 23:50||   2006-03-01 23:50|| Front Page Top

23:56 2b
23:53 3dc
23:50 2b
23:42 trailing wife
23:35 3dc
23:35 trailing wife
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
22:59 Remoteman
22:58 Frank G
22:55 RWV
22:50 Photle Graviger5976
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:45 Bobby
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:41 Bobby
22:40 RWV
22:38 DMFD
22:37 SR-71
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:35 DMFD
22:34 .com
22:34 trailing wife
22:32 trailing wife
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com