Tuesday, February 28, 2006

And in the 'Why take a chance category'..

Well, we have seen previously in other documented posts that UAE imams preach the usual hate, that UAE 'royalty' were visting OBL preventing a USA strike, and we have seen claims that Al Qaeda has infiltrated the UAE govt.

But, hey this town looks likes us ! (with less traffic)

To me the key is always what the populace of the UAE thinks. They have been represented to us as supporting the USA strongly. They have been represented as a strong and dependable ally in the War on Terror, and not what we would find elsewhere along the gulf. We have also been told that the leaders of the UAE are 'different' from others.

I am trying to keep an open mind.

However, a Zogby poll on the UAE from 2004 shows this:

-- 73% of UAE citizens had a negative view of the United States; only 14% had a favorable view.

-- Only 5% of UAE citizens felt that "democracy" was an "extremely important" reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction was cited by 16%. "Oil" and "domination of the Muslim world" were the main reasons offered by UAE citizens for our invasion of Iraq.

-- 81% of UAE citizens felt Iraq was worse off after the war. Only 4% said it was better off without Saddam.

-- 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

Anyone shocked?
I am very concerned about stubborn incompetence in the Bush admin.
I am more concerned that our alternatives on the other side of the aisle ARE WORSE.

I remain unconvinced. I remain convinced that IF the UAE leaders favor the USA at all it is because they think we'll win. That kind of Afghan warlord alliance, is too fickle to allow any contact with operations of US ports. We should be turning the same skeptical baleful eye towards Chinese govt owned corporate operations of US ports on the west coast. If they invade Taiwan, or pressure it and we respond with the 7th Fleet, do you think that west coast port operations might be something the Chinese would have a day to day interest in? Think that might be important to Iran if they are supplying China with increasing amounts of oil? Think China would like to see us taken down a peg by Iran at little cost to themselves? Think any pressuring of Taiwan might occur just when tensions with Iran peak?

What is the Bush Admin thinking about?
Convince me this has been discussed, Georgie. It's not Xenophobia or racism to be prudently concerned that too little weight has been given to this by PROCESS. Especially when in the second week, and before any investigation begins we find out that Homeland Security objected, and the Coast Guard did as well. It sounds like 9/10 thinking to me. Convince me otherwise.


Always On Watch said...

It's not Xenophobia or racism to be prudently concerned that too little weight has been given to this by PROCESS.

Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing valid concerns denigrated by means of accusations of "xenophobia" and "racism." A smokescreen, IMO.

Always On Watch said...

And here is something else to look over. A commenter left the link at Liberty and Culture

Epaminondas said...

Where the HELL would we be without blogs?

I can't stand Schumer generally, but I'm goign to email him that link.



the outrage?

The operations controls which containers are offloaded to trucks and trains...why aren't we informed?

When were THESE contracts signed?
1970, 80, 90, 2002?
When are they up? Who reviews this?

Always On Watch said...

I thought you'd be interested in that link. Somebody should blog the hell out of it. I'm busy with work right now, but maybe someone else can get to the issue.

You might also want to have a look at today's posting at Sixth Column. Eleanor has put up some very interesting information! The title of the article is "Dubai Ports--Strategic Implications."

Cubed © said...


"A smokescreen. . ."

You sure got THAT right! The use of "ad hominem" is a classic manoeuvre to derail an argument. We must learn not to respond to inaccurate terms like "xenophobia," "racism," etc. and not to let them distract us from the points we are making.

Liberty and Culture is hitting the nail on the head, too!

And isn't that article Eleanor put up at Sixth Column great? She's really been leading the charge lately!


"Where in the HELL would we be without blogs?"

Absolutely nowhere; without blogs. . .I can't even imagine a world without blogs any more. We'd be behind one hell of an eightball without them. If "they" ever shut us down, I suppose we could revert to carrier pidgeons, but. . .

And you are so right about those OTHER contracts! Some talk show hosts and others say that if we're so upset about Dubai, why didn't we complain about Communist China etc?

Excellent question, and the more that keeps getting dug up about that issue, the closer we will come to making some better choices.

The whole "points of entry" and "infrastructure thing is insane! Borders, Ports, airports, interstates, railroads - all must be owned and operated by US!

Another thing that irritates me is all those idiots who claim that "only 30% of the terminals will be operated by Dubai. . ."

It only takes ONE CONTAINER, for God's sake! "Thirty percent" is an awful lot of containers, ships, personnel etc.


Cubed © said...

Oh, and most of us have probably already heard, but NewsMax.com Wires (Monday 2/27) points out that fhe "U.A.E. Terminal Takeover Extends to 21 Ports."


Epaminondas said...

I emailed Collins, Schumer, Mccain and few others I have had some luck with before those links.

Jason Pappas said...

Thanks, those poll numbers tell me what I wanted to know: what to the people of the UAE think. I'm not surprised. Friends? No way. That we may share common enemies (Saddam, Iran) doesn't make for friends.

Jason Pappas said...

By the way, I’ve seen one of the Zogby brothers talking about their polls among Arabs. A constant theme seems to be “they (i.e. Americans) only love us for our oil.” Of course, I could cynically add that they only give us the oil because they love our money.

But that’s what trade is about: it’s a limited tit-for-tat exchange. Friendship has nothing to do with it. It’s honorable but limited; it is something to be proud of but it isn’t personal. Muslims seem to think that we owe them something for being Muslims. They hint that we should be altruistic as if trade was something to be ashamed of. And too many people are falling for that line without be conscious of it.

We should be brutally honest: we despise your culture, your way of life and your ideas. If some of our citizens want to “hold their nose” and buy/sell widgets, so be it. But a friend, you’re not. We know how you feel about us and we’re not fond of you either.

linearthinker said...

Given that it was a Zogby poll, I'm automatically on guard. The questions and results are about what I'd expect from a Zogby poll taken in 2004. Zogby is a polished propagandist posing as a pollster. Having said all that, the raw numbers in the responses are unsettling.

Epaminondas said...

Until the 2004 election Zogby was easily the most accurate pollster domestically. I think he let his fervent wishes finally get in the way in the last days leading up to the election. If you read the methodology for the foreign polls, it SEEMS pretty good, but I'm no expert there.

The big questions are..are people telling the truth in the middle east? Are they afraid their phones were being listened to? Who was asking the questions, kufrs,, or brothers?

linearthinker said...

I think you're right regarding the pre2004 Zogby. I remember being puzzled when the wheels started coming off his wagon during the election. Here's a good dissection of Zogby's recent Iraq military poll, especially his response, "you have to trust me."

And, to your question, "are people telling the truth in the middle east?" You're kidding, right?