| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
UAE port deal and strange bedfellows
The debate surrounding the controversial UAE port deal has made for some strange bedfellows. I’m on board with it, and this morning the LA Times editorial page has come out in support of it (hat tip: Karl), Richard Cohen at the WashPost is in favor of it, as is Nick Kristoff (paid reg. req.) at the New York Times.
The same can be said for my friends on the right who are against the UAE port deal, who are on the same side of the fence on this one as Senator Hillary Clinton (among others on the left who share her opinion) – although the reasons why why our friends on the right are against the deal more than pass the credibility test whereas the Hillary Clinton-led left’s do not.
Stange bedfellows indeed, eh?
There’s a strong element of profiling in all of this, and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now. Whether for or against it, the right’s position on this is pretty consistent with their belief in profiling: both pro and con UAE port deal on the right believe the UAE should have been more heavily scrutinized than, say, the UK, on this deal for the obvious reasons – namely, the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE and also the UAE’s questionable relationship in the past with the Taliban. One side of the right says that scrutiny should have shown that the deal shouldn’t have been approved while the other side of the right (the pro-deal side) welcomed the extra scrutiny but believed in the end that the scrutiny shows that the UAE are a valuable ally in the war on terror and have proven their worth with their assistance in the WOT.
The left’s position on this all of a sudden seems to be that it’s ok to profile because the buyers are from the UAE. Does this mean that Hillary and the rest of the newfound supporters of profiling on the left are now on board with a more targeted scrutiny of UAE Muslims who pass through our airports? I would bet the answer on that would be a resounding “NO.”
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
78 Responses to “UAE port deal and strange bedfellows”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
GBA tried to hard but looked foolish by saying, “The first plane hitting the tower was not on TV that morning.
The aftermath of the first plane hitting the tower was on within minutes. And you know darn well that’s what Bush meant. It was on TV. Bush was looking at the TV and saw that building. But GBA looks very hard for a conspiracy and it only makes you look…. loony.
GBA eerily asked, “So when I heard the President say this I wondered for a long time whether this was political posturing or if there was colusion. I still wonder. What did we know and when did we know it?
I don’t know. You are getting me to think. If I think as long as you did… oh. It’s coming to me. I got it. Bush planned it so that he could take away our civil liberties and have an excuse to go into Iraq and “steal the oil” as you said yesterday. Now I know. Now I’m on your side. I hate Bush and think he’s LYING. I was just convinced by ya..
GBA really amazed me with this quote, “I don’t like what is going on. The political divisiveness of both parties.”
What do you think the divisiveness is caused from? I’ll answer that. People making false allegations. Incorrect accusations…. Like these from you yesterday:
1) “We went there to steal the oil.”
2) “And we have rebuilt almost nothing.”
3) “We bomb indiscriminately”
4) “What makes you think that Abu al Zarqawi even exist?”
5) “we tortured, raped and murdered to centralize our power.”
Then GBA because of his distrust and mind full of inaccurate accusations said, “So I am saying that if the President really wants to ease the anxiety of Americans he should create tremendous transparency for this port deal.
While I agree that the President is lacking in ability to articulate like Robert Kaplan did on the UAE ports deal subject… I was against the deal before I heard him (his interview can be found on radioblogger.com), in this issue it’d be hard for the President or anyone to satisfy anyone for 2 big reasons:
1) You can’t divulge all of the security protocols/measures of the ports.
2) Given what you can say, you can’t convince most people because NOBODY can guarantee 100% security. Period. All other ports operated/managed by Chinese and other folks you can’t guarantee 100% security. This isn’t about just security. There is a whole RANGE of COMPLEX ideas on this issue. And NEVER ONCE did I Baklava come around because I feel for Bush. It has never been about Bush no matter how many times GBA thinks/says so.
GBA asked, “Is this the best we can do?
No. We can spend more money on more resources. Just like at the airports and nuclear plants and what not. It is not up to the President as the president doesn’t control the purse strings. THe Congress does. And… The Congress has increased dollars spent for security by large margins. I’m not sure why it just seems to me that Democrats/liberals want to continually score points by bashing as opposed to rallying behind their leaders to offer solutions. I shouldn’t generalize. Both parties bash. But you get my drift.
I’m still not sure how I think about the deal, except that a lot of BS has been spewed about it.
Me, I’m all for profiling! Profile away! As for the ports deal – let’s see what the 45 day delay allows us to discover.
ST: “And because this deal is being pushed by Republicans, you scream how bad the idea is. Double standard my foot.”
Show me where I’ve “screamed” that. I never said the deal was bad. I just said that it raised real questions that should be answered. You assumed that. Maybe your knee-jerk response requires that you assign a knee-jerk response to me?
TNG:“Instead, you’re rabidly defending Bush, even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk and it’s still being studied under the 45-day law.”
ST: “You’re poorly informed”
Actually, I’ve read that CG PR. Do you really believe that it completely erases the concern that the coast guard previously expressed and mitigates the need for the 45 day window? That was my point. The CG dubbed it high risk. Bush tried to ram it through with veto threats, etc. I think that’s a problem. If anything, the PR raises a lot of caveats that underscore the need for the review period.
ST: That’s why about 90% of the right were against the Miers nomination and are pretty much evenly split on the UAE port deal. This is not about following Bush…
Citing Harriet Miers among the sheer volume of substantive cases to the contrary doesn’t say much. And note that I said “many” not all. The fact that ANY (let alone 50%) of you guys jump to support and defend Bush’s headlong rush into this deal, given your typical approach to the WOT trumping everything else, I think my point stands.
But, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt since you offered such a compelling deal.
TNG: “So, his self contradictions cause you to contort yourself into the strangest positions as you fail in your attempts to make the logic work.”
ST: And the factual rant I’m responding to from you totally demolishes the logic behind my position, right?
There is no logic in your position if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal. Consider my post an observation of that fact.
TNG: Hence, these ridiculous, off-top arguments about profiliing, etc.”
ST: Off topic? Get real! I’ve already posted about the crux of the concern, as it related to our national security here in a pretty lengthy post.
That’s another post…one that was on-topic. This post is still off-topic and does a disservice to any real discussion about serious security questions. Hauling in conjecture about Hillary is akin to Ann Coulter’s deplorable baiting tactics and doesn’t help this country. The original commenter pointed this out and you tried to downplay your original post by saying you weren’t making it a profiling issue.
And I’m saying that you are, in fact, obscuring the real issue with this Hillary, profiling nonsense.
Why not just stick to your more thought out analysis based on the real concern, rather than raising these divisive red herrings? Again, you’re obviously free to do it, but what value are you trying to add? So you prove Hillary’s a hypocrite. Now what? How much safer are the ports?
In fact, with the two posts that you are fond of reffering to, it’s like you’re saying, “ok, we’ve talked about the issue, now let’s get back to demeaning the Dems and dividing the country”.
ST: Just because you don’t like talking about the hypocrisy coming forth from your side of the aisle doesn’t make it ‘off-topic’ – maybe in your world it does …
You’re right. That’s not what makes it off-topic. It’s off-topic on its own. That’s my whole point. The topic (at least the key topic raised by the port deal) is security. Yours is about Hillary.
TNG: And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is.
ST: ROTFLMAO – “diversionary tactic”?? That’s a trip, considering that’s exactly what you just did: you diverted the topic into being about ME rather than whether or not this truly was profiling.
No. Your topic itself is the diversion. I simply rejected your attempt to change to this topic as underhanded, and I further pointed out your unwillingness to own up to it when put to you.
Again, we’re all entitled to freedom of speech. I’m just suggesting that, here, yours is intentinally divisive and I’m suggesting that we not feign indignance and ignorance when called on it.
TNG wrote, “No. Your topic itself is the diversion.
Seems to me it’s her blog and you can turn the channel if you think it’s a diversion. I choose this one because I like what she writes about and find her stance on this issue took GREAT courage at the time she did take it and I told her so. She changed her mind for the deal before I did. She (ST) is FREE to write about what she feels and is only a diversion as much as YOU feel it is and in such case…. turn the channel….
Baklava,
I agree completely, and I stated more than once that she (and all of us for that matter) are free to say what we want.
And, that means I’m free to reject what she says. And, in fact, since we share this country and I find this divisive and harmful to our country, I have incentive for speaking out.
Of course, since this is her blog, she’s also free to edit out that rejection or ban me altogether. This is all a given.
But, all of that notwithstanding, maybe you can answer the question, since you “like what she writes”: What’s the point of trying to prove Hillary a hypocrite in all this? What value do we, as a country, get out of it? Or you as an invidiual for that matter?
Sister,
Look at the encouraging side of this, they wouldn’t argue with you unless they say you as a threat.
Amazing when the simple truth is more of a threat then the rhetoric…..
TNG: “Show me where I’ve “screamed” that. I never said the deal was bad. I just said that it raised real questions that should be answered. You assumed that.”
ST: Oh ok. So you think it was a good deal, right? Otherwise, you wouldn’t be b!tching to me about how I’m being “off topic” for criticizing Hillary and other Dems for their hypocrisy on this issue.
TNG: Maybe your knee-jerk response requires that you assign a knee-jerk response to me?
ST: LOL. “Knee jerk response”? I’ve blogged about this issue five times now, with my first post initially stating that I was against the deal. My position has evolved – so my response to this issue was not knee jerk. And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you’re ok with this deal.
TNG: “Actually, I’ve read that CG PR. Do you really believe that it completely erases the concern that the coast guard previously expressed and mitigates the need for the 45 day window? That was my point. The CG dubbed it high risk.”
ST: The CG’s questions were asked and answered to their satisfaction. Your comment about it made it sound like it was rammed through without their concerns being addressed. That’s not what happened. That’s why I said you were poorly informed.
TNG: “Bush tried to ram it through with veto threats, etc. I think that’s a problem. If anything, the PR raises a lot of caveats that underscore the need for the review period.”
But this deal *was* reviewed – by all the intelligence agencies … again, to their satisfaction.
TNG: Citing Harriet Miers among the sheer volume of substantive cases to the contrary doesn’t say much. And note that I said “many” not all. The fact that ANY (let alone 50%) of you guys jump to support and defend Bush’s headlong rush into this deal, given your typical approach to the WOT trumping everything else, I think my point stands.”
ST: Well of COURSE you think your point stands, because you couldn’t possibly want to admit that conservatives have been divided and didn’t march lockstep with Bush on many things and been quite vocal about it – let me give a small rundown: No Child Left Behind, the farm bill, the Patriot Act, the Bush adminstration’s response to the Schiavo case, Harriet Miers, now this. So no, your point does NOT stand.
TNG: But, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt since you offered such a compelling deal.
ST: Thanks. I’ll sleep much better tonight knowing that.
TNG: “There is no logic in your position if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal. Consider my post an observation of that fact.”
ST: LOL! Just because you say there’s no logic doesn’t make it so. And BTW, if you don’t think there’s any logic to the support of this deal, then I guess my belief that you were against it was right on the mark. Thanks for confirming it for me.
TNG: “That’s another post…one that was on-topic. This post is still off-topic and does a disservice to any real discussion about serious security questions.”
ST: BS. I started this post off talking about the strange bedfellows each side was making with respect to this issue (I urge you to read it again) and their positions on it and then went on to point out Hillary and the rest of the left (who stand with her on this) hypocrisy on profiling. That is NOT off topic – that is PART OF THE ISSUE.
TNG: “Hauling in conjecture about Hillary is akin to Ann Coulter’s deplorable baiting tactics and doesn’t help this country.”
ST: First, don’t ever compare me to Ann Coulter again. I don’t act like Ann Coulter, I don’t look like Ann Coulter, and I don’t talk like Ann Coulter. I don’t go around calling Arabs ragheads nor do I talk about how much I’d like to blow up the NYT. Secondly, discussions about profiling DO help this country in understanding exactly when/if we should profile and why.
TNG: “The original commenter pointed this out and you tried to downplay your original post by saying you weren’t making it a profiling issue.”
ST: Learn to read more carefully. The previous poster said I was trying to make this about race. I wasn’t.
TNG: “And I’m saying that you are, in fact, obscuring the real issue with this Hillary, profiling nonsense.”
ST: Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that part of the issue here IS profiling of Arabs – you, for whatever reason (I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that you’re uptight because I’m *GASP* picking on Democrats!) don’t seem to grasp that. Why don’t you ask a few Muslims how they feel about the hype on this issue? Why don’t you read a few op/eds and see what people I don’t normally agree with say about this issue (op/eds which I referenced in this post). I suppose you think they’re “not helping this country” either and are acting like Ann Coulter as well and are deliberately trying to sidetrack from the real issue, eh? What a joke.
TNG: “Why not just stick to your more thought out analysis based on the real concern, rather than raising these divisive red herrings?”
ST: Ah, so now you admit that I have addressed the crux of the concerns whereas before you made it seem like I had ignored them. Good – we’re making progress. WRT to your ‘red herring’ ‘off topic’ nonsense, I’m going to say once again that profiling is PART of the issue, one which is on the table for discussion and not just here. If you don’t like it, tough.
TNG: “Again, you’re obviously free to do it, but what value are you trying to add?”
ST: Trying to keep people consistent, last I checked, wasn’t a crime. There’s a lot of value in consistency. Surprising you haven’t figured that out yet.
TNG: “So you prove Hillary’s a hypocrite.”
ST: So you agree with me?
TNG: “Now what? How much safer are the ports?”
ST: Not safe enough, but port security wasn’t the topic of this post. It was about strange bedfellows and the hypocrisy of the left on profiling. I’m sorry you have such a problem with me calling the left out when they’re being hypocrites but I’m going to continue to do it – your concerns on that front, however, are duly noted.
TNG: “In fact, with the two posts that you are fond of reffering to, it’s like you’re saying, “ok, we’ve talked about the issue, now let’s get back to demeaning the Dems and dividing the country”.”
ST: Oh yes, I’m all about dividing the country! Get a grip. The gist of your argument seems to be: “OMG, ST is attacking Dems. How dare her!” You know what? Get over it.
TNG: “You’re right. That’s not what makes it off-topic. It’s off-topic on its own. That’s my whole point. The topic (at least the key topic raised by the port deal) is security. Yours is about Hillary.”
ST: The topic of this post was strange bedfellows and Dem hypocrisy on the issue of profiling. Please read it again.
TNG: “And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is.”
ST: I’ve done no such thing. Why would I try to downplay that part of the issue is profiling when I MENTIONED it in the very post in question?? And again, discussion of profiling as it relates to this issue is quite relevant, your protestations notwithstanding.
TNG: “No. Your topic itself is the diversion. I simply rejected your attempt to change to this topic as underhanded, and I further pointed out your unwillingness to own up to it when put to you.”
ST: BS. You made the discussion about ME rather than the topic at hand. You didn’t once address whether or not profiling was at play here WRT to Hillary and the left’s position on this issue. You made it about me (which you did again in the post I’m responding to). Again, so much easier to attack the messenger than the message, isn’t it TNG?
TNG: “Again, we’re all entitled to freedom of speech. I’m just suggesting that, here, yours is intentinally divisive and I’m suggesting that we not feign indignance and ignorance when called on it.”
ST: You can “suggest” it all you want, that doesn’t make it so. I blog about the issues that are important to me, and have blogged about the concerns people have as it relates to the security aspect of this issue and turned today to blog about another aspect of the issue I thought should be noted and discussed. Your whole argument boils down to the fact that you’re irritated that I’ve criticized the left’s position on this issue when you should know at this point that coming here and seeing me criticize the left really isn’t a surprise.
Newsflash, TNG: your declaring something off topic and ‘intentionally divisive’ does not make it so. And if you don’t like to read criticism of Democrats and thinking exploring different aspects of an issue equates to being ‘off topic’, I suggest you turn to a blog more to your liking, because I’ll continue to criticize Democrats and call them on their hypocrisy every chance I get, and will continue to blog about different aspects of issues that I believe are important to discuss.
>that means I’m free to reject what she
>says
Yeah! Vote with your feet… err, mouse! I assure you that the drop in blog traffic cause by your leaving and never coming back will absolutely crush her!
*chuckling*
I do believe that whatever ST wants the topic to be is what the topic is. How can she put something off topic when it is hers to mold/guide how she wants.
Side note: It was mentioned we have freedom of speech here on comments, this is where you are wrong. Oh your free to make such comments, your free to curse, your free to berate, your even free to put out death threats…at least you think its free……
There is always consequences to your actions (cause and effect), and what you feel “free” to do, can result in being turned into the authorities, banning, editting or plain deletions.
Temper your words and they will outlive you – sanity
Baklava thanks for the 17:05 post. I actually believe that GBA is an intelligent person and wants what most of us here want. The five remarks he made that you listed, made my blood boil! He backed off some but I’m pretty sure there’s a heartfelt apology yet unstated from him for his ignorant accusations, that he should make to those he kicked in the teeth yesterday.
I’ll go first GBA. I don’t normally allow my emotions to run my mouth or actions, but I did yesterday. I truly am sorry for what I called you GBA and all who might’ve been offended by my language
. I hope I didn’t try your patience Sis, sorry about the outburst.
Trust is the issue and not blind patriotism. Support and unity is what keeps us all safe. The old divide and conquer reality is what’s really at stake.
Slightly OT: Not being computer savvy, I can’t link the video of a Muslim woman named Wafa Sultan at Ace of Spades “Must Watch Video From MEMRI TV”. Outstanding, no matter who you are unless your an Islamic Terrorist or one of their supporters! I’m seriously concerned for her safety. If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs! – Poe I think, but in a literal way.
ST: And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you’re ok with this deal.
I didn’t say I agree. I said there were still too many questions. Your intelligence remains uninsulted.
ST: LOL. “Knee jerk response”?…I’ve blogged about this issue five times…
I’m talking about your knee jerk response to my questioning this deal. You haven’t blogged about that have you? You automatically assumed that I was against it b/c the Republicans were for it…at least that’s what you said.
ST: The CG’s questions were asked and answered to their satisfaction. Your comment about it made it sound like it was rammed through without their concerns being addressed.
My point is that if it’s that much cause for concern, then maybe Bush’s 2-day (or whatever) review might be a tad rash.
ST:But this deal *was* reviewed – by all the intelligence agencies … again, to their satisfaction.
Even the #2 guy in DHS testified just today that, in retrospect, he wishes he had the info in that report. Is he one you’re citing as having “approved” the deal.
And it hadn’t gone through the mandatory 45-day review period required by law when Bush was threatening vetos, etc.
ST: let me give a small rundown: No Child Left Behind, the farm bill…Patriot Act…
Wow, and yet you guys hide your dissent so well. Still when anyone disagrees with some of these same issues, they’re traitors and want the US to lose the WOT.
ST: Thanks. I’ll sleep much better tonight knowing that.
As will I.
ST:BTW, if you don’t think there’s any logic to the support of this deal, then I guess my belief that you were against it was right on the mark.
Huh? Nice try…but you conveniently forgot the rest of the quote “…if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal.”
Once again, my point is that more review is in order and Bush is jumping the gun. I never said there was no logic to this deal.
ST:Secondly, discussions about profiling DO help this country in understanding exactly when/if we should profile and why.
True. It could. But you didn’t bring it up in that context. You’re railing on about hypocrisy and such. Strange way of opening an honest debate on profiling. Now, I think you’re insulting my intelligence.
ST: Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that part of the issue here IS profiling of Arabs…
I think we all know that’s been brought into the issue. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning your need to make the Dems’ motivation out to be less honorable.
ST:I suppose you think they’re “not helping this country” either and are acting like Ann Coulter…
No. I don’t remember them ranting about “Hillary’s hypocrisy” and attempting to make the port issue a Dems problem. Honestly, it doesn’t matter what happens or who did it. There’s always a Democrat to blame, isn’t there?
ST: Ah, so now you admit that I have addressed the crux of the concerns whereas before you made it seem like I had ignored them.
Never said you hadn’t. I questioned your need to bring in the extraneous stuff.
ST: Oh yes, I’m all about dividing the country! Get a grip.
Are we pretending that such divisiveness hasn’t helped the right lately?
ST:You know what? Get over it.
I will if you will.
ST:I’ll continue to criticize Democrats and call them on their hypocrisy every chance I get…
In general, you’re pretending that you’re raising this general point about profiling in a way that’s useful (or even truthful) to the discussion.
In fact, you’re wildly singling out Hillary and Dems. You’re irresponsibly charging them with less honorable motivations when there’s concern on both sides. i.e., you’re saying that her concerns about the UAE are based simply on them being a Middle Eastern nation, when there are clearly issues specifically with that government’s history that are being raised from all quarters.
So, the irony is that even while you’re so determined to create some Democratic problem from this whole thing and drag in “Democratic hypocrisy”, your charges there are just plain baseless. In fact, this whole “on-topic thread” has no merit to begin with.
Funny once GB and P&O were the enemy then came WW1 and WW2. Now Dubai and DP are being called the enemy. If they are the enemy where’s the meat? Any problems and they are out. So the proof then action. In the meantime we wait and watch.
“So, the irony is that even while you’re so determined to create some Democratic problem from this whole thing and drag in “Democratic hypocrisy”, your charges there are just plain baseless.”
No they’re not, and I explained exactly why in my post:
There’s a strong element of profiling in all of this, and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now. Whether for or against it, the right’s position on this is pretty consistent with their belief in profiling: both pro and con UAE port deal on the right believe the UAE should have been more heavily scrutinized than, say, the UK, on this deal for the obvious reasons – namely, the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE and also the UAE’s questionable relationship in the past with the Taliban. One side of the right says that scrutiny should have shown that the deal shouldn’t have been approved while the other side of the right (the pro-deal side) welcomed the extra scrutiny but believed in the end that the scrutiny shows that the UAE are a valuable ally in the war on terror and have proven their worth with their assistance in the WOT.
“In fact, this whole “on-topic thread” has no merit to begin with.”
You’ve made it clear that’s how you feel, but thankfully you’re in the minority here on that – I’m going to repeat to you one more time: I will blog about what I want and when I want, irregardless of YOUR concerns on whether or not something is “on topic.”
The bottom line is your big issue here is that I had the audacity to call Democrats on their hypocrisy on profiling – a hypocrisy that I explained quite well in my post. Because I discussed an aspect of this issue that you disagreed with, you decided to declare it “off topic” even though you refuse to acknowledge that I’m not the only one to have brought up this angle and not only that but you refuse to acknowledge that it’s not just ‘the right’ bringing up this angle.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of someone’s position (as I did with Hillary and others on the left who agree with her) calls their credibility into question as to whether or not their ‘concern’ is genuine, or whether or not there’s another angle (i.e. political motivations). There’s nothing wrong with questioning the credibility of someone’s argument – in fact, that’s something you did right here and quite extensively, I might add. So chalk up yet another double standard for you. It’s ok for you to attack the credibility of someone else’s argument but when someone else does it it’s “off topic” “baseless” and serves no purpose in ‘helping this country progress.’
Here’s a bit of advice, TNG: if you don’t like something I’m blogging about, don’t comment on it. Move on to something you’re interested in discussing. You got your feathers ruffled because I called people in your party on their double standards on profiling – it’s understandable you’d get a bit rankled, but for you to call it “off topic” and baseless in merit is laughable, considering you’ve offered no contrary viewpoint except to say essentially “no, that’s not true!” as if your blanket denial is supposed to hold water? LOL
Since you have such a problem with this thread, I encourage you to move on from it because this little back and forth between me and you has gone on long enough and taken away from the point of the thread, which was to discuss Democratic hypocrisy on the issue of profiling in addition to marvelling about the strange bedfellows some of us are making. And in case you have a problem “moving on” from this thread, I’ll be around to help. Understood?
It seems to me that this deal is no big deal from a security standpoint. If someone wants to bring weapons into America, they can smuggle them in in the same fashion that drug dealers have been doing for decades. It would be much easier than trying to sneak them through our ports by what will certainly be the most scrutinized shipping company in America.
And I don’t approve of their boycott of Israeli products, but it is discomforting to find out that we have a law that forces companies in America to do business with people they would prefer not to.
I read an excellent article, got to find it, think it was on Big Lizard.
Anyways, it pointed out that if we don’t do business with someone because they have had a terrorists that was part of thier society, then we will be removing alot of busies from trade. UAE, British, even the US. Each has had citizens that have been a terrorist.
The arguement everyone keeps coming up wiht about Israel not being recognized, while Israel is a partner and ally, should we never do business with someone if they don’t recognize the same things we do?
While its good to have common interest in business, you will have differing attitudes. I am not overly concern with them recognizing an ally as long as they are not actively threatening our ally like Iran is.
Found it. Hate talking about something without physical proof…
Link
Sanity, “U.S. laws bar firms cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel”, at least according to this article. It sounds like a horrible law to me, but if it’s accurate, this deal can’t go through.
And if I am not mistaken, the UAE consists of several arab governments.
So what happens if a portion of that seven recognizes Israel and the others do not?
Also, would that article apply if it is not one government though? the UAE is not one government but is a ‘coalition’ of several. Could it be argued that the UAE is not a government?
Just curious.
forest,
I think sometimes he gives an indication that he might actually understand what you wrote, but then he comes back around full circle as if nothing was discussed. There is no movement. He continues on with inaccurate accusations on EVERY topic. Why would someone want to continue that kind of pattern? It doesn’t make one look intelligent. Sure people have the right to say stuff, but depending on what they say is how we perceive them.
“depending on what they say is how we preceive them”, right-on! And that is why showing Mohammad as a terrorist was so stupid and wrong. The USA invades Afghanistan and Iraq and bush is constantly running down the “Arab terrorists”, don’t you think that if you lived over their you might be a tad freaked-out. Then these horrible catoons show up at the same time bush is theatening to invade Iran. That creates an overload for these poor people. It is time for Peace not more war. Peace
To be fair, Steve is the proud grandson of Neville Chamberlain.
Baklava: As you pointed out his spiraling inane stance was a big part of the reason I went off on him. It’s frustrating to witness his destructive blather and know the impact that it has, where he seems even happy to be in the oblivion. It’s not like the pet steve barking from behind the Vets that maintain his right to bark. It’s to be expected from him in his utopian drift. Which is likely the main reason why he has never answered a single question I’ve confronted him with. He can’t and I have learned to expect nothing from people like that.
I take issue with the disrespectful emanations read daily throughout the various sites. That’s precisely why, being listed among the fallible humans I apologized to him. My own standards were violated. I led by example and I simply demonstrated to him, what I would expect of any considerate human being.
Wow Forest, that video you mentioned in an earlier post is very powerful (seen here). That is a very brave woman speaking the truth at a time and place that speaking the truth can get you killed. Very brave.
“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”…T.H.Huxley
“You shake and shake the ketchup bottle. None’ll come, and then a lot’l.” – Richard Armour
(I can post unrelated stuff too!)
Hot off the presses! The Financial Times reports that Bill Clinton was working with the UAE and DPW to get the deal to buy P&O accepted by the US while Hillary was waddling to the cameras to denounce the deal.
Bill Works for UAE While Hillary Bashes Deal
I wonder how much Bill got paid?
SAY IT AINT SO! Nice job PCD! Can’t you just hear the donks running to the microphones and cameras to “EXPLAIN” the reasoning. I wonder if we’ll get to hear about the “log in our own eye” part again?