Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
what the hell does that crap even mean?
What? Are you telling me that, in the minds of some of the nutjobs over there, that vaporizing a US city or two won't bring you a whole lot of virgins in the afterlife?
Don't you think they would have tried something like that OVER THERE first? I mean we only have 2 sizable military presences over there.....
IF they had a weapon, which they don't.
and let's not forget, those countries over there AREN'T exactly friends either.....
the UAE is in a border dispute with Oman AND it's in a dispute with Iran over some islands in the Persian Gulf.
"oh yeah Jimmy Carter is SUCH a good friend of mine...LOL...it's knee-jerkers like yourself that are bringing this forum down with it. FR is a laughingstock now as it was with Terri Schindler was murdered in Tampa. This is my last post to you. Good day."
Right, you didn't have any problems calling me Chucky Schumer's pal, and you call ME the knee-jerker. Let me know if you ever define conservative as something in opposition to the GOP party line, 'botnolongerinIraq.
Try this.http:
//www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583260/posts?page=97#97....
post 97
ohhh he called me botnolongeriniraq...
did it REALLY take you 20 minutes to come up with that??
I mean I know you want to carry Pat Buchanan's water, but you can do better than that.
LOL
Perhaps it might be best if you re-read my post. The part you highlight refers to the behavior of people that have objected to this sale. It makes no reference as to whether this is a good policy move or bad policy move. Only that the behavior of some folks could have been different, in return allowing a differnet less hardened stance by the administration to see this through.
You've been your own worst enemies on this, given the manner carried forth by so many.
You state Arab countriies will forever direct wrath at the U.S. You state this as though it is fact. It is not. Countries like Iran and syria will do this. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that are "allies" though not friends, have suffered from the terrorists THEY created. I am of the opinion these countries are similiar to our alliance with Russia/S.U. during the days of Hitler. The natural order is dispursed because we have a mutual enemy of greater threat. That enemy being one that doesn't respect any Government, including that of the Saudi royal family. This is why we have become allies. Will the natural order return once the terrorists are removed as an obstacle? probable, but until that day a new relationship has emerged.
As to the nuts and bolts issue of whether it's a good idea... even if we supply security, to allow them to make money off the ports? It doesn't sit well with me. But at the same time I am not in the grouping overtly concerned they'll spend millions to blow us up when they toppled two buildings, crashed half the Pentagon, and "retired" several of our planes for significantly less. It defies common sense.
I don't think this is a great deal, I don't think it is either worth the amount of hysteria it has engendered. It is a big deal that's worth national debate. More or less than that i reject.
"I agree with you 199%, but I am yet to here of any American company, or Government entity that could run the ports. DHS or FEMA? Perhaps the Navy, but not on this scale. I'm against the deal, but would like to know the consequences."
According to the Dubai-first crowd, the port operations will be run by the same folks regardless. No big deal about who 'collects the profit,' right? Let's let Wal-Mart run `em! /sarc
Seriously--though the above effectively refutes the 'it-doesn't-matter-who-runs-them-the-same-folks-will-work-there' line--I don't know, either. But I would reckon that at least some American private company would take `em over quick if the sale was sweetened by an additional government check. I don't want a mess in the ports, either.
And here I thought you had posted your last to me a while back, Mr. Baldwin. After you defend our country, you come back and defend Bush where he's caught NOT defending our country's national security. Should I have called you something different, 'botnolongerinIraq? I do so want to be accurate in my posts, a claim you cannot make, ESPECIALLY not after you call me a Buchanan fan.
Since they probably own 50% of the cargo being offloaded, thats not a bad idea!
Muslims will not be running things. Only writing the checks. Nothing is going to change. You should listen to Rush. Besides if the liberal moonbats are against this, then I'm for it.
Jimmy Carter's with Bush. Does that mean you're against it now? If Muslims are 'only writing the checks,' why can we not simply have an American company do that?
Actually, I asked you three questions:
1) How has the objection been irrational, other than the folks on the left who wouldn't profile now are all for it in the case of port operations?
2) Dubai doesn't let foreigners run ITS port. Does that offend you?
3) if the UAE wanted to run Pentagon security contracts, would it be appropriate for us to object to a nearly-done-deal there, or would you worry about being offensive first?
I think people leading the objection from the right started pretty rationally, and then got insulted quickly at the slams from the Bush party line folks. Hard to imagine this thread you link to is the first--and we both know it's not.
As to your question, "when have I [soul seeker] objected to folks raising their voice against any deal at any time? I didn't imply that you had, and I'm not sure what difference that would make.
Actually, I believe we do lease a vital port used for our military over there. If we revoke their contract based only on religion, they might choose to pull that very strategic military port from us ...
And, patriotism is above yours.
BS I don't believe in putting profit over my country's security,but hey they said some companies still continued to business with Nazi Germany during WWII, got to have that almighty dollar don't we
Are we next?
Well, let's see... We have the President of our country threatening to use a veto to make sure it does.
Yep. We are next.
Even Libertarianism is selective. Imagine that.
Is that all you have? You're pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.