In Defense Of Dubai

CBS News ^ | Feb. 22, 2006 | Dick Meyer

[presidio9]

Thanks. What where you doning in Dubai anyway?

[sinkspur]

Are you trying to tell me that the risk of a terrorist attack at one of these port is the same if American companies are running it or an Arab country is running it.

American companies weren't running these ports to begin with. P&O was a British company.

And Arabs are not in charge of security, for the umpteenth time. Homeland Security and the Coast Guard are.

[sinkspur]

If they havent universally supported Israel's right to exist, if they haven't universally condemned Palestinian nutballs, then they are defacto enemies of the West.

The Vatican has not condemned the Palestinians.

Are they defacto enemies of the West?

[presidio9]

The Vatican has not condemned the Palestinians.

Correct, the Vatican does not condemn nationalities, and it does not take sides in politic debates. However, the comment referred to "Palestinian Nutballs," ie "terrorists." The Vatican has most assuredly condemned terrorists. I know you dislike the Church hierarchy, but you are wrong to bring them into this discussion.

[commonerX]

I didn't say they will run securty did I.

But you are not going to tell me that there will never be some Islamist terrorist or sympathizer working for them. All they need to do is observe the practices of the Homeland security, find where there is weaknesses and report back to the people who will carry out such attacks. Come on you can't have your head that deep in the sand.

I live near one of these ports do you?

[commonerX]

"""If they havent universally supported Israel's right to exist, if they haven't universally condemned Palestinian nutballs, then they are defacto enemies of the West.
The Vatican has not condemned the Palestinians.

Are they defacto enemies of the West?"""


Huh,I am speechless at that analogy.

The Vatican isn't trying to destroy a country. If they were then yes they would be an enemy.

You need to work out your argument a little better.

[DeaconRed]

"What was O'Reilly's take on it?"

He said about the same thing, that they aren't going to have control over the ports security and that UAE is a friend and we risk pissing off a good friend etc etc etc

[sinkspur]

The Vatican isn't trying to destroy a country.

Is the UAE trying to destroy the United States? It would seem odd to me that DPW would try to wipe out its biggest customer.

[CowboyJay]

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of almost everything the man's done in office. I don't understand the reasoning based on some personal principles.

1) Islam is not compatible with Judeo-Christian ethics, and vice-versa, due to Mohammed's call for violence against infidels. We subscribe to a different mythos and a different ethos. Conflict between our civilizations is inevitable.

2)The only way we can possibly peacefully co-exist within either a nation or society is the liberalization of either their beliefs and ethics or ours. I don't really care to adjust my ethics to suit them.

2) I am a conservative. Liberalization of my faith and our nation is what I seek to avoid (Judeo-Christian ethos, laws based upon Judeo-Christian ethos, and freedom to practice Christianity in every aspect of my life).

3) Liberalism has led to the eventual decline and/or demise of every nation that has embraced it

3) It is pragmatically acceptable for us to treat with them as allies, or operate bases upon their soil, if it is in our national interest (or exchange war materiel and intelligence if they are fighting on our side).

4) It is unacceptable to treat them as a friendly nation (free-trade, land ownership, immigration) so long as they hold Islam as their national faith, as it is not possible for us to be part of a common civilization without guaranteeing our own demise

5) Conflict (military, economic, political, or cultural) is inevitable. Military conflict can only be avoided if they recognize our sovereignty (our constitutional right to practice our faith in any way we choose within the borders of our nation).

6) The 9-11 attack was a violation of our religious sovereignty. The attack was incited and perpetrated by the leaders of their religion. Whether or not that war is ongoing is a matter of opinion. I would consider it part of a larger conflict that has been going on for thousands of years. I do not believe the conflict will end unless one faith or the other is eradicated. In short; the only way that Islam can be part of our common civilization is if we either convert to Islam or Atheism.

[commonerX]

"""Is the UAE trying to destroy the United States? It would seem odd to me that DPW would try to wipe out its biggest customer."""


It sounds to me you are not understanding the situation here.

You are trying to make the argument that because the UAE government, and DPW is owned by the Gov., hasn't expressing the desire to destroy American that everything is OK, that all their Arab workers and citizens are good Muslims and want to be our friend. Come on, you can't feed me sh!t and tell me it's pudding.

The men that flew the planes into the WTC weren't doing the bidding of a single company or Country. They did it because we are the infidels and they are muslim.

[CowboyJay]

OK - apparently I can't count to 7.

[fix]

Today I do not believe that the President has made a sudden u-turn or changed directions on our national security because he has not, nor have his closest advisers.

You're right. They are still heading in exactly the same direction. Wide open borders...and now wide open ports.

[fix]

Bush didn't do anything.

He has threatened to use his veto pen to protect a foreign company when he wouldn't even consider it to protect our rights. Witness McCain-Feingold.

[sinkspur]

The men that flew the planes into the WTC weren't doing the bidding of a single company or Country. They did it because we are the infidels and they are muslim.

So, because some Arabs are terrorists, all Arabs are terrorists?

[Squint]

[i]Please dont ask me any more stupid questions.[/i]

Ok, but I'm not sure how my pointing out that your photo had nothing to do with the thread was stupid.

[confederacy of dunces]

How dare you inject facts and logic into the discussion?

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

[commonerX]

I guess I have to start repeating myself here.

"""So, because some Arabs are terrorists, all Arabs are terrorists?""""


From a previous post on this topic.
I think given the chance many would kill you and me. But no, not all, and it is a stupid accusation to assume that anyone is referring to all Arabs. But enough of them have expressed their desire to destroy America, to make me put them all on watch and trust very few.

If you are not going to acknowledge what I have written then stop posting to me.

I will not allow you to pick thought and manipulate what I have written here.

[ConservativeBamaFan]

I wonder if Israel would consider using UAE for their ports? If not, why?

[commonerX]

"""I wonder if Israel would consider using UAE for their ports? If not, why?"""


Yeah I wonder why not. Remember all Arabs aren't terrorist. So as long as there are some good ones, we must welcome them all with open arms. (sarc)

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>> The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports.

This UAE issue brings up the question of how many visas have been granted to Arab Muslims to work in, at, or near these ports.

Maybe its time to take the control of our ports back into American hands.