Duabi/UAE gives up ports to US firm

[slickdawg]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- United Arab Emirates-owned DP World said Thursday it would transfer its operations of American ports to a U.S. "entity" after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the firm's takeover deal was essentially dead on Capitol Hill.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship ... DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said in a statement.

----------------

[Octavian]

haha

[JohnnyMack]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!

[IronSooner]

You gotta be impressed with how calm and understanding UAE has come across in the whole deal. I wonder if they're really like that or as p*ssed off as it seems like they should be over it all.

[Ike]

oh well.
congress/FUD: 1
Free Trade: 0
I really thought the Prez was right on this one.

[yermom]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!

yeah, like that wasn't the initial plan ;)

[Octavian]

Must.

Give.

Linky. ;)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

[slickdawg]

Must.

Give.

Linky.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security


My bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html

[Hatfield]

You gotta be impressed with how calm and understanding UAE has come across in the whole deal. I wonder if they're really like that or as p*ssed off as it seems like they should be over it all.

they will still be making the money...they could care less about our fake outrage

[BoomerJack]

I am VERY INTERESTED in who/what this "U.S. entity" is that is going to buy/compensate/takeover the operations of the U.S. ports that were involved in this.

Also, on another site, I read that of the approx. $7 billion of the initial transaction, the U.S. ports were valued at about 10 per cent of the total and that the Dubai company was not going suffer a loss from the divestiture of those U.S. ports. That means that the U.S. buyer has to come up with $700 million to satisfy Dubai.

It's gonna be interesting to see who the players are and how the deal ends up being structured.

[Ike]

ya know, there's an interesting question within this whole episode...I wonder if Bush's continued rhetoric about security and the war on terror has caused (or exacerbated) an illogical, knee-jerk reaction towards anything middle eastern, that in essence doomed this whole shebang from the git-go? Or did we (not nessecarily you and me, but the general populous at large, and the congress-men and women that represent them) come about our xenophobia 100% naturally?

in other words, it's entirely possible that the Bush administration inadvertently brought the failure of this deal on themselves by continually stressing security and the war on terror above all things.

anyway, just an interesting point to think about.

[Jerk]

Boeing will probably lose their large contract with UAE now to build something like 50 large commercial jets. But one party believes the "ends justifies the means" so they'll take whatever leverage they can gain from this in the polls. The other party apparantly has no nuts and have been integrated into The Beast since they gained power in 1994 after they promised to make The Beast smaller, spend less, tax less, etc.

**** them all, and the dumb sheeple who buy into the propaganda.

So much for one of our great Arab allies in the war on terror. They'll probably ask our Air Force base to pack up and leave their country, as well as not allowing our naval ships to dock in their ports. But we can't have those pesky arabs running our ports!!!

This whole shenanigen was never about "our protection." It was about the 2006 election.

[Harry Beanbag]

ya know, there's an interesting question within this whole episode...I wonder if Bush's continued rhetoric about security and the war on terror has caused (or exacerbated) an illogical, knee-jerk reaction towards anything middle eastern, that in essence doomed this whole shebang from the git-go? Or did we (not nessecarily you and me, but the general populous at large, and the congress-men and women that represent them) come about our xenophobia 100% naturally?

in other words, it's entirely possible that the Bush administration inadvertently brought the failure of this deal on themselves by continually stressing security and the war on terror above all things.

anyway, just an interesting point to think about.


You may be right on the Republican side. The Dems though must have an ulterior motive to be so concerned about security for once. Unless of course they suddenly are advocating racial profiling...

[picasso]

as I heard on the radio nearly half of our country actually thought the UAE was going to be running security. heh, wrong.

[mdklatt]

as I heard on the radio nearly half of our country actually thought the UAE was going to be running security.

I wonder if the UAE could actually do a better job....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!ZINGO! now Dick Cheney can get the big commission he always gets from Halliburton, and the prez now has another totally hostile country that he will have to invade... but, wait. I think WALMART is on the list of bidders for the terminals contract. They could beat out Halliburton, and then all the pseudo security-conscious leftists will be happy.

[Ike]

You may be right on the Republican side. The Dems though must have an ulterior motive to be so concerned about security for once. Unless of course they suddenly are advocating racial profiling...

I think the dems are doing it for 2 reasons:
a) just to oppose Bush...that does seem to be their mission in everything not involving the distribution of pork
b) so they can campaign (just like the republicans) on a "we saved yer jerbs, and kept the A-rabs out of our ports!!! Vote fer meeee!" platform.

quite frankly, its disgusting that none of the members of congress wanted to actually look at the deal and attempt to educate the public. I understand why they did, but I still don't like it. They did it because if they try to actually do the right thing, they run the risk of failing by being labeled weak on a-rabs.
politics is all about scapegoating, and appearing to 'stand up against' the scapegoat. Its pretty shameful.

[Ike]

ZINGO! now Dick Cheney can get the big commission he always gets from Halliburton, and the prez now has another totally hostile country that he will have to invade... but, wait. I think WALMART is on the list of bidders for the terminals contract. They could beat out Halliburton, and then all the pseudo security-conscious leftists will be happy.
psssst...it won't be just the pseudo-cops on the left that will be happy...I'm guessing that there will be an equal number of people on the right that will be happy

[Harry Beanbag]

I think the dems are doing it for 2 reasons:
a) just to oppose Bush...that does seem to be their mission in everything not involving the distribution of pork
b) so they can campaign (just like the republicans) on a "we saved yer jerbs, and kept the A-rabs out of our ports!!! Vote fer meeee!" platform.



That's exactly what I think. ****ing politicians.

[AlbqSooner]

When the ultimate buyer is identifed, follow the ownership of that company all the way up. Would not surprise me in the least to find UAE owns/controls a substantial portion of the stock.

[SicEmBaylor]

I would always rather US port operations go to a US company even if no bidding is possible because no competition exists (i.e. it would most likely go to a Haliburton subsidiary).

However, a few things should be kept in mind on this port deal.

1)The port deal has nothing to do with security. Say it again, the port deal has nothing to do with security. Port operations are limited to loading/unloading, moving ships in and out, etc. etc. At no time do they have anything to do with the security at the port.

2)We have very few allies in the region and the UAE happens to be one of them. Why on Earth are we going out of our way to kick in the teeth of one of our only allies in the region? It's disgusting and it's going to backfire.

[GottaHavePride]

Well, we've been making horrendous foreign policy decisions the entire time Bush has been in office, why stop now?

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, we've been making horrendous foreign policy decisions the entire time Bush has been in office, why stop now?

Really, all of them? The ENTIRE time? Say what you want about Iraq, but could you provide some more examples?

[picasso]

Bush is also the reason little kids are meaner these days.

[JohnnyMack]

ZINGO! now Dick Cheney can get the big commission he always gets from Halliburton, and the prez now has another totally hostile country that he will have to invade... but, wait. I think WALMART is on the list of bidders for the terminals contract. They could beat out Halliburton, and then all the pseudo security-conscious leftists will be happy.

Wrong. :rolleyes: It's quite clear that Halliburton will manage port security in order to allow the army of clones that have been manufactured in Taiwan to be brought stateside so they can be unleashed on the unsuspecting populace.

[royalfan5]

Fun fact about the UAE, their largest Agricultral import from the U.S.A is 60 million dollars worth of horses.

[GottaHavePride]

Really, all of them? The ENTIRE time? Say what you want about Iraq, but could you provide some more examples?

I particularly liked backing out of that Kyoto treaty that had taken ten years of work to get set up.

[SicEmBaylor]

I particularly liked backing out of that Kyoto treaty that had taken ten years of work to get set up.

Really? The treaty that, like all treaties, must be approved by the Senate of these United States which was rejected by a vote of 99-0 by that body?

The same treaty that was rejected by a vote of 99-0 because liberals and conservatives alike are responsible to the American people and the American people aren't too king on having the basis of our economy destroyed by an internationally developed treaty?

You're going to have to do better than Kyoto if you want to appear knowledgeable on the subject of foreign policy faux pas by the Bush Administration.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Don't worry guys after Wal Mart conquers the Gas Stations, they will set their sights on Military Production.

[mdklatt]

I particularly liked backing out of that Kyoto treaty that had taken ten years of work to get set up.

The Euros weren't too keen to sign it either, and there's some questionable science going on in there. The worse polluters--developing countries--have the least restrictions. Environmental quality in the US has continued to improve under the Bush administration just as it did during Clinton's administration. There is certainly room for improvement, but I've never seen people walking around in the US with hospital masks and dusk masks because of air pollution like I did in Bologna and Tokyo.

[GottaHavePride]

The negotiation vs. "Axis of Evil" waffle over North Korea? And we just decided to assist India's nuclear program, but not Pakistan's?

I'll admit I'm not political science wizard, and I'm not totally up on everything. And heck, I even voted for Bush last time around. I just seems that recently this country has tended more towards giving the finger to the rest of the planet and doing as we see fit. And that's not a good way to gain allies.

[royalfan5]

The negotiation vs. "Axis of Evil" waffle over North Korea? And we just decided to assist India's nuclear program, but not Pakistan's?

I'll admit I'm not political science wizard, and I'm not totally up on everything. And heck, I even voted for Bush last time around. I just seems that recently this country has tended more towards giving the finger to the rest of the planet and doing as we see fit. And that's not a good way to gain allies.
For the Nuclear thing, do you support a democratic nation that is a huge economic partner, or do you give nuclear help to a military dicator whose country is rife with terrorists in there remote territories, and has a history of deposing their dictators, and potenially letting that nuclear technology fall into the hands of someone much worse.

[GottaHavePride]

There's that side, but there's also the view that Pakistan has been at least willing to act like they're helping us with the whole Afghanistan business, and aiding a country they absolutely freaking hate with its nuclear program doesn't exactly win us a lot of goodwill in Pakistan.

[mdklatt]

For the Nuclear thing, do you support a democratic nation that is a huge economic partner, or do you give nuclear help to a military dicator whose country is rife with terrorists in there remote territories, and has a history of deposing their dictators, and potenially letting that nuclear technology fall into the hands of someone much worse.

But Pakistan already has the technology.

[JohnnyMack]

We can't stop Pakistan now. Russia/China will see to that.

[SicEmBaylor]

The negotiation vs. "Axis of Evil" waffle over North Korea? And we just decided to assist India's nuclear program, but not Pakistan's?

I'll admit I'm not political science wizard, and I'm not totally up on everything. And heck, I even voted for Bush last time around. I just seems that recently this country has tended more towards giving the finger to the rest of the planet and doing as we see fit. And that's not a good way to gain allies.

1)The Axis of Evil statement wasn't made as some sort of alternative to diplomacy though. You can say what you want about it, but the American people often complain of leaders who aren't bold enough and get entangled in the language of Foggy Bottom when making foreign policy speeches. And honestly do you believe the leaders of Syria, Iran, and N. Korea aren't evil?

I don't think there was a whole lot of value in the statement, but I don't see anything wrong with it either.

Now, in lieu of the fact that the Axis of Evil statement wasn't made as some sort of alternative to diplomacy; exactly how did the Bush administration waffle? Every nation is going to require a different diplomatic approach and solution. And with North Korea there just aren't too many options.

And India is a FAR FAR different nation. You're smart enough to know that India and Pakistan are two VERY VERY different governments and as such the same rules and expectations shouldn't be applied to both. Pakistan is an Islamic nation that has proliferated nuclear weapons, given aide to enemies of these United States, and before 9/11 supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

India is a stable democracy that has never threatened our national security, never proflierated their nuclear technology, and has been a partner in the war against Terror.

Here's my question GHP, isn't there a large degree of diplomatic failure by failing to recognize and acknowledge the obvious differences in two countries and applying a blanket policy to both that isn't in our best interests or the interests of the world community?

The agreement with India is an absolute diplomatic triumph for these United States regardless of the administration or political part in power. It recognizes the differences of two very different nuclear powers and brings about international inspection of nuclear facilities where there was none at all before.

GHP, I understand and recognize your frustration with this idea that these United States are thumbing its nose to the world and giving everyone the finger but it just doesn't jive with the facts. Here's my challenge to you, set aside the "feelings" that one gets from listening to other sources on what the state of world affairs is and look at each diplomatic issue. Lord knows I'm not a Bush sunshine pumper; there is no way in hell I would vote for him again. However, there is a HUGE difference between the layman's sense of foreign policy and the actual facts involved.

[SicEmBaylor]

There's that side, but there's also the view that Pakistan has been at least willing to act like they're helping us with the whole Afghanistan business, and aiding a country they absolutely freaking hate with its nuclear program doesn't exactly win us a lot of goodwill in Pakistan.

Pakistan behaves the way Pakistan does because we've started subsidizing their government with billions of dollars worth of aide. Musharaff is for the most part securlar, but Pakistan itself is radically islamic and definitely not a friend of these United States. He holds power in the country because he controls the military and is able to pay off the tribal warlords that divde up the country. He does that through the aide of these United States. It's totally in his benefit to be as helpful as he can to these United States without suffering the wrath of the radical islamists in the group.

This is very different than dealing with a nation like India which isn't islamic and doesn't have that sort of anti-American sentiment. Again, India is a stable democratic government and actually suffers from a lot of the same terrorism that plague us and Israel.

But giving this deal to India won't weaken our position with the Pakistani government. They aren't doing anything for us from the bottom of their hearts.

[mdklatt]

It's totally in his benefit to be as helpful as he can to these United States without suffering the wrath of the radical islamists in the group.



Further US involvement--especially in their nuclear program--wouldn't be doing him any favors. When you look at it that way, it's in Musharaf's best intersests (and thus ours) to not make a deal like India did.

[GottaHavePride]

Here's my question GHP, isn't there a large degree of diplomatic failure by failing to recognize and acknowledge the obvious differences in two countries and applying a blanket policy to both that isn't in our best interests or the interests of the world community?
Yes, that would be fairly idiotic. But that's not to say we couldn't offer Pakistan advisors to help them improve the safety of their operations (not to mention the security) and maintain a bit more goodwill in Pakistan.

EDIT: and an offer doesn't mean he'd accept, but at least we'd look like we care.

And I freely acknowledge that you know a lot more about this stuff than I do. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Further US involvement--especially in their nuclear program--wouldn't be doing him any favors. When you look at it that way, it's in Musharaf's best intersests (and thus ours) to not make a deal like India did.

That's exactly right. It would bring not only us but the international community into their nuclear program which most Pakistanis are NOT going to want and you're exactly right it'd weaken Musharaf's position further.

[JohnnyMack]

I've become more of an isolationist. Screw 'em. Screw Israel. Screw Iraq. Screw the entire middle east.

[Octavian]

1)The Axis of Evil statement wasn't made as some sort of alternative to diplomacy though.

So in the months following 9/11, a "with us or against us" stance on global diplomacy didn't turn the State Dept. on it's head? Didn't make Powell and Armitage cringe? The administration trumped it as the "Bush Doctrine" until they realized it wasn't feasible.


And honestly do you believe the leaders of Syria, Iran, and N. Korea aren't evil?

human leaders have dubbed their human enemies "evil" throughout space and time....believing that another human civilization or their human leaders are simply "evil" b/c they are in opposition to you is a great way to mobilize support and action, but shouldn't be a credible way to discern a situation among adults. Evil? That's for fairy tales. War is war. Killing is killing. No matter how you order humans to kill other humans, you're killing in the name of war. Millions of people on this planet think GWB (or America) is "evil." They're wrong b/c they dont understand the man, the history, or this country. That's an incredibly simplistic way to coppout and not have to think.


Now, in lieu of the fact that the Axis of Evil statement wasn't made as some sort of alternative to diplomacy; exactly how did the Bush administration waffle?

you can't declare a war on terrorism and hold hands w/ the members of the Saudi Royal Family in the Rose Garden at the same time. That line may (and obviously did) fly in Kansas, but the rest of the world sees it as hypocritical. More waffles you may ask?? When the WMD don't show up, they retreated into a mantra of "human rights" violations...then take trips to China.

See, their flip flops were self imposed b/c, at the beginning, they defined the problem incorrectly to achieve pre-determined aims. When it didn't work out, they resorted to contstant vagueries--most usually the ever popular term "freedom (never defined)."


Pakistan is an Islamic nation that has proliferated nuclear weapons, given aide to enemies of these United States, and before 9/11 supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Saudis? UAE?


isn't there a large degree of diplomatic failure by failing to recognize and acknowledge the obvious differences in two countries and applying a blanket policy to both that isn't in our best interests or the interests of the world community?

yes there is. I'd ask you the same question w/ regards to a Shia (the same strain of Islam dominant in Iran---which punked Jimmuh in the late 70s and started the martyrdom movement) dominant nation the Administration chose to invade w/ shaky evidence (and I say shaky, b/c they above all others knew the evidence they presented was cherrypicked---there's no disputing that) in hopes of implanting a republic dominated by a Shia brand of Islam which was supressed for decades under a brutal dictator---next door to Iran....a diplomatic failure understated.


The agreement with India is an absolute diplomatic triumph for these United States regardless of the administration or political part in power.

it's been a week....that remains to be seen.


It recognizes the differences of two very different nuclear powers and brings about international inspection of nuclear facilities where there was none at all before.

not when you make a deal w/ India, and you're next stop on the tour is Pakistan...where you reaffirm what you've been saying since 9/11....that Pakistan is a staunch ally on the War on Terror.


I understand and recognize your frustration with this idea that these United States are thumbing its nose to the world and giving everyone the finger but it just doesn't jive with the facts.

I have no clue why you added this sentence.


Here's my challenge to you, set aside the "feelings" that one gets from listening to other sources on what the state of world affairs is and look at each diplomatic issue.

as you demonstrate, thats a pretty hard thing to do.


Lord knows I'm not a Bush sunshine pumper

maybe not on domestic issues...


there is no way in hell I would vote for him again.

somehow I doubt that.


However, there is a HUGE difference between the layman's sense of foreign policy and the actual facts involved.

at last, we agree.

[SicEmBaylor]

Uh now we can have ourselves a real row!



So in the months following 9/11, a "with us or against us" stance on global diplomacy didn't turn the State Dept. on it's head? Didn't make Powell and Armitage cringe? The administration trumped it as the "Bush Doctrine" until they realized it wasn't feasible.

It did, but that's not the context in which I was speaking. If the question had been asked, "Has Bush's foreign policy changed the way in which these United States conduct foreign policy?" then I would have agreed with you. But, simply in the cotext of the "Axis of Evil" speech it did not. We never ceased negotiation or seeking negotiations with any of those entities as a result of that speech. We continued to diplomatically engage with each of those nations before and after the speech.


human leaders have dubbed their human enemies "evil" throughout space and time....believing that another human civilization or their human leaders are simply "evil" b/c they are in opposition to you is a great way to mobilize support and action, but shouldn't be a credible way to discern a situation among adults. Evil? That's for fairy tales. War is war. Killing is killing. No matter how you order humans to kill other humans, you're killing in the name of war. Millions of people on this planet think GWB (or America) is "evil." They're wrong b/c they dont understand the man, the history, or this country. That's an incredibly simplistic way to coppout and not have to think.

Now Octavian surely this is intellectually below you. What you say only has merit if you are a believer in moral relativsim. If the tag "evil" is enough to make one evil then yes you'd have a point. However regardless of how often or incorrectly the word is thrown about evil does exist in the world and it is personified by the leaders of the N. Korea, Iran, and Syria (and in that order). Do we really need to catalog the human rights abuses of the Axis of Evil to make a compelling case that those three leaders embody that evil?

George W. Bush is not evil. Bill Clinton is not evil. Jimmy Carter, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, John Murtha, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton are not evil. In fact, no American leader is or has ever been what I would consider "evil" up to and including Richard Nixon. I'm not content with labeling political opponets "evil" and thinking for a minute that accusation has any merit. It's dumb and intellectually dishonest.

But like I said if you're a moral relativist, as you appear to me, then I can certainly understand that perception. However, I personally am a person who believes in an absolute right and wrong and knowing there is an absolute right or wrong allows me to evaluate to what degree leaders may or may not be right and wrong. Therefore it's perfectly acceptable and correct to try to discern what leaders may be evil.


you can't declare a war on terrorism and hold hands w/ the members of the Saudi Royal Family in the Rose Garden at the same time. That line may (and obviously did) fly in Kansas, but the rest of the world sees it as hypocritical. More waffles you may ask?? When the WMD don't show up, they retreated into a mantra of "human rights" violations...then take trips to China.

I exactly disagree with anything you've said. This is why our foreign policy should never be based upon some overwhelming moral idea of the world. It's the exact mistake that Jimmy Carter made the only difference with the current Bush Administration is in means not ends. What I was saying in my earlier statement is that he has not waffled from the Axis of Evil statement. And while I don't really disagree with your points on Saudia Arabia; there exists differences between the Saudi regime and others. They have been cooperative to a degree when those mentioned above have not. China is a different situation all together as far as terrorism not really being an issue though your human rights complains are correct.


Saudis? UAE?
So, what's your point? Neither of those nations have a nuclear program so it would be difficult to have an agreement on inspection of those sites by the IAEA. Obviously we aren't extending the deal to them either.


yes there is. I'd ask you the same question w/ regards to a Shia (the same strain of Islam dominant in Iran---which punked Jimmuh in the late 70s and started the martyrdom movement) dominant nation the Administration chose to invade w/ shaky evidence (and I say shaky, b/c they above all others knew the evidence they presented was cherrypicked---there's no disputing that) in hopes of implanting a republic dominated by a Shia brand of Islam which was supressed for decades under a brutal dictator---next door to Iran....a diplomatic failure understated.

I totally agree and I've never said anything to the contrary. That was a concern of mine before the war ever started and I have that same concern today.


it's been a week....that remains to be seen.
Well true, I'm assuming that the Senate is going to ratify the treaty and that India will abide by it. If either of those conditions aren't met then yes it'd be a failure. Otherwise it's a triumph.



not when you make a deal w/ India, and you're next stop on the tour is Pakistan...where you reaffirm what you've been saying since 9/11....that Pakistan is a staunch ally on the War on Terror.

I personally don't think they're that great an ally since all of their actions are minimal at best and only because we're paying for everything we get out of them. The problem of course is that we still need them so what would you expect Bush to do? Cut off diplomatic relations and call them a bunch of bastards? That wouldn't be conducive to an open and respectful foreign policy would it?


I have no clue why you added this sentence.
Because it's true.


maybe not on domestic issues...
I'm not on foreign policy either but more so than domestic. The problem is people hate and disagree with Bush for all the wrong reasons. There is a right reason to disagree and a wrong reason to disagree.


somehow I doubt that.
You shouldn't. I'm voting Constitution Party in '08. They're isolationist but I'd gladly exchange an isolationist foreign policy for correct government at home.

[SicEmBaylor]

Octavian, I'm going to go even further in possible agreement with you...

I don't believe the so-called War on Terror is the greatest security threat to this country. I think it barely makes the top 5. Nor do I agree that every waking moment should be spent on talking about, fighting, and worrying about a few bozos in a cave half a world away.

China and N. Korea are both FAR FAR larger security threats to this country than terrorism is. While terrorists have the ability to make pin pricks here and there they really hav eno way of threatening this nation as a whole. That is not true of China, N. Korea, or even today's Russia.

I just don't buy the mombo jumbo hype of the war on terror. But that doesn't mean that I buy all the crap the left has always and will always continue to peddle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

While terrorists have the ability to make pin pricks here and there they really hav eno way of threatening this nation as a whole. That is not true of China, N. Korea, or even today's Russia.

:confused: One nuclear, chemical or biological of a significant magnitude placed in a large city in the good old USA will send our country, and the world, into chaos.

[SicEmBaylor]

:confused: One nuclear, chemical or biological of a significant magnitude placed in a large city in the good old USA will send our country, and the world, into chaos.

One well placed nuke would be a disasterous and horrible event but it would hardly be some sort of epic world shifting event whereby our Republic is brought to its knees and choas ensues around the world. In fact, most of the nuclear devices that terrorists are able to get ahold of would wipe out the downtown of a major city but the damage would taper off after that. I'm not saying it wouldn't be horrible but it wouldn't be catastrophic either.


Now, China unleashing 8-12 nukes on US cities while simulatenously invading Taiwan and N. Korea heading south might do it.

[Octavian]

It did, but that's not the context in which I was speaking. If the question had been asked, "Has Bush's foreign policy changed the way in which these United States conduct foreign policy?" then I would have agreed with you. But, simply in the cotext of the "Axis of Evil" speech it did not. We never ceased negotiation or seeking negotiations with any of those entities as a result of that speech. We continued to diplomatically engage with each of those nations before and after the speech.

true, but again...(especially in the issue definition stage), the Administration believed that the American people were the only people who could hear them...."With us or against us" was popular here....and re-iterated....to the confusion of non-Americans, f.p. experts, and later, to Americans themselves (as eveidenced by much of this thread).


Now Octavian surely this is intellectually below you. What you say only has merit if you are a believer in moral relativsim. If the tag "evil" is enough to make one evil then yes you'd have a point. However regardless of how often or incorrectly the word is thrown about evil does exist in the world and it is personified by the leaders of the N. Korea, Iran, and Syria (and in that order). Do we really need to catalog the human rights abuses of the Axis of Evil to make a compelling case that those three leaders embody that evil?

George W. Bush is not evil. Bill Clinton is not evil. Jimmy Carter, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, John Murtha, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton are not evil. In fact, no American leader is or has ever been what I would consider "evil" up to and including Richard Nixon. I'm not content with labeling political opponets "evil" and thinking for a minute that accusation has any merit. It's dumb and intellectually dishonest.

But like I said if you're a moral relativist, as you appear to me, then I can certainly understand that perception. However, I personally am a person who believes in an absolute right and wrong and knowing there is an absolute right or wrong allows me to evaluate to what degree leaders may or may not be right and wrong. Therefore it's perfectly acceptable and correct to try to discern what leaders may be evil.

this is probably a little bit out of our realms...philosophy has a tendancy to make my head spin...but ok cool. I believe good and bad exists w/in each human being....from the leaders of nations to the janitors who throw away their burger wrappers. Because you're an American leader doesn't mean you can't be evil....ask the Cherokees.


I exactly disagree with anything you've said. This is why our foreign policy should never be based upon some overwhelming moral idea of the world. It's the exact mistake that Jimmy Carter made the only difference with the current Bush Administration is in means not ends.

okay...you're a Morgenthau Realist, not a Wilsonian Idealist...me too. But W flipped a 180 from Kissinger to Wolfowitz in a matter of months.


So, what's your point? Neither of those nations have a nuclear program so it would be difficult to have an agreement on inspection of those sites by the IAEA. Obviously we aren't extending the deal to them either.

the point is that the Bush Administration continued to support the Saudis (which they had to) and now feverishly support the UAE. Economic issues aside, the Administration painted themselves in a corner from the outset and have been forced to whisper white lies ever since in regard to numerous American "allies"



Well true, I'm assuming that the Senate is going to ratify the treaty and that India will abide by it. If either of those conditions aren't met then yes it'd be a failure. Otherwise it's a triumph.

in the short term I agree...there's not much hope that India wouldn't acquire the arsenal sometime in my lifetime...the disaster will be if we arm them and then lose the relationship...ala Saddam


I'm not on foreign policy either but more so than domestic. The problem is people hate and disagree with Bush for all the wrong reasons. There is a right reason to disagree and a wrong reason to disagree.

I agree there. There are a few things I agree w/ him policy wise. There isn't much I don't love about him personally. I don't have enough time for the negatives about his policies, the background of his worldview, or (more specifically) his party apparatus....



You shouldn't. I'm voting Constitution Party in '08. They're isolationist but I'd gladly exchange an isolationist foreign policy for correct government at home.

ok well I'm currently looking for a new party as well....these two parties (in perhaps the most crucial period in American history since VJ Day) have systematically engaged in the very type of behavior they denounced on 9/12. They have both failed the American public from sea to shining sea and I wouldn't mind a new face replacing either of them.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, I'll accept the Morganthau Realist label as long as I don't have to accept Morganthau himself. :D


ok well I'm currently looking for a new party as well....these two parties (in perhaps the most crucial period in American history since VJ Day) have systematically engaged in the very type of behavior they denounced on 9/12. They have both failed the American public from sea to shining sea and I wouldn't mind a new face replacing either of them.

Well, I completely agree that both parties have totally failed the American people. I think we probably have different reasons for believing that though.

Let me ask you Octavian as an obvious liberal...

I know that we obviously have a totally different ideology and outlook on life and our politics are completely different. But, I can't help but think that there is a way to bring both liberals and conservatives together in order to better serve the American people.

This is rather complicated so I'm just going to hit a few of the highlights and see what you think. I'm actuall considering authoring a book on this subject, but I don't know if anyone would want to publish it much less read it.

I'm a VERY VERY strict believer in limited Federal government and the rights of the individual states. There are a lot of conservatives who also purport to believe in this simply because that is what is directed by the Constitution, but my philosophy goes further becuase I believe the sovereignty of the individual states go beyond the Constitution itself.

So here is my broad proposal to liberals.

Would you accept a massive deconstruction of the Federal government whereby Congress cuts all programs and all agencies that aren't the result of a specifically enumerated power and then cut taxes equaling the cost of those programs thus returning all of that power to the individual states?

In exchange, I would support similar state programs that would do what they were suppose to do on the Federal level.

The benefits would be many....
1)States would be able to craft laws that best conform to the ideals, beliefs, customs, and prejudices of the people of their state. The people of Massachussetts think very diffrently than the people of Mississippi so why should a one size fits all Federal law apply to both? I say let their business be their business and let our business be ours.

2)States would be able to craft social programs that best meet the unique needs of the people of their states. If the people of a particular state want a broader reaching program than social security to take care of the retirement needs of its citizens then more power to them. If they want a more limited government role then that'd be their business as well.

3)States would have to compete with each other just like a business in the open marketplace for industry and population. The states would have to craft laws and programs that not only promote business but also keep the best in the state and attract growth. For example, if the state of Oklahoma strikes a good balance between a tax system that encourages growth and social programs for its citizens then it will be more likely to keep the best in the state rather than lose them to say Texas.

4)Nationwide conflict between liberals and conservatives would be reduced because both sides would be in agreement that Federal one-size fits all action imposed on all of the states and all of the people is neither the best solution for conservatives nor liberals. I truly believe that all of this conflict and animosity between the two ideologies is because both sides have started using the Federal government to advance their own agenda. This used to a major problem among liberals, but now conservatives are just as guilty of it. Neither conservatives nor liberals should impose their values or seek to use the Federal government for their own purposes. The values of the people of Vermont are not shared by the people of Idaho. Therefore let the people of Vermont and Idaho craft law best fitting the beliefs of its people.

Now, liberals that I have talked to seem to reject this outright because the idea of using the federal government to advance their cause is too enticing and too difficult to let go of. But I really believe it's the only cure for what ails us as a nation and as a society.

[Octavian]

I'm a VERY VERY strict believer in limited Federal government and the rights of the individual states. There are a lot of conservatives who also purport to believe in this simply because that is what is directed by the Constitution, but my philosophy goes further becuase I believe the sovereignty of the individual states go beyond the Constitution itself.

that’s noble of you, possibly legally correct, probably theoretically correct. But that issue was decided in war. The Federalists won.



Would you accept a massive deconstruction of the Federal government whereby Congress cuts all programs and all agencies that aren't the result of a specifically enumerated power and then cut taxes equaling the cost of those programs thus returning all of that power to the individual states?

In exchange, I would support similar state programs that would do what they were suppose to do on the Federal level.

This would radically alter the shape of not only this nation, but the world. The Federal Reserve System is the first agency that comes to mind…the Pentagon and the CENTCOM system another. I think you’re speaking of the nanny-state programs though, and I could probably agree w/ you on paper. In practice, states would enter into free market competition for virtually all commodities and services…it would be difficult to maintain cohesion


The benefits would be many....
1) States would be able to craft laws that best conform to the ideals, beliefs, customs, and prejudices of the people of their state. The people of Massachussetts think very diffrently than the people of Mississippi so why should a one size fits all Federal law apply to both? I say let their business be their business and let our business be ours.

This is where we diverge. This basically nullifies federal judicial oversight. I know it’s the area that conservatives hate. “Unelected activist judges” making decisions for the rest of the country…..but that’s exactly what the branch was designed for. Majority tyrannies can worse than dictatorial tyrannies, it was one of Aristotle’s first observations on democracy.
Would blacks have ever been treated equally under the law in Mississippi had it not been for judicial oversight/intervention? Maybe…but it might have taken another century. This proposal seems to teeter much to close to mob rule….democracy is a good guide but it needs counterbalances to offset the passions and prejudices of the people. Courts are supposed to be able to tell citizens “no” b/c as we often see, in a republic, elected politicians won’t.


2)States would be able to craft social programs that best meet the unique needs of the people of their states. If the people of a particular state want a broader reaching program than social security to take care of the retirement needs of its citizens then more power to them. If they want a more limited government role then that'd be their business as well.

Again, on paper, we could probably agree here.


3)States would have to compete with each other just like a business in the open marketplace for industry and population. The states would have to craft laws and programs that not only promote business but also keep the best in the state and attract growth. For example, if the state of Oklahoma strikes a good balance between a tax system that encourages growth and social programs for its citizens then it will be more likely to keep the best in the state rather than lose them to say Texas.

Ok I must now go on a spill about the system in which you’re placing all of your faith. My problem w/ this is that the free-market (or so-called) isn’t a great solution for everything. Some entities need to be public IMO. Schools, jails, militaries, governments (all of which are increasingly privatized---and though I know its assumed privatization increases efficiency, there’s a good deal of evidence it creates just as many, or more, problems). Other problems would arise: w/ the abolition of uniform federal commerce codes, states would inevitably bicker and look for a higher power to solve complex issues.

The classical errors of confederation would creep in. The first century of the republic was a dispute between these two factions. The EU and Iraq are both experiencing similar problems now.


4)Nationwide conflict between liberals and conservatives would be reduced because both sides would be in agreement that Federal one-size fits all action imposed on all of the states and all of the people is neither the best solution for conservatives nor liberals. I truly believe that all of this conflict and animosity between the two ideologies is because both sides have started using the Federal government to advance their own agenda. This used to a major problem among liberals, but now conservatives are just as guilty of it. Neither conservatives nor liberals should impose their values or seek to use the Federal government for their own purposes.

Good point.


The values of the people of Vermont are not shared by the people of Idaho. Therefore let the people of Vermont and Idaho craft law best fitting the beliefs of its people.

This is your basic premise and I agree. If you’re gonna write a book you should use this a starting and go.


Now, liberals that I have talked to seem to reject this outright because the idea of using the federal government to advance their cause is too enticing and too difficult to let go of.

What cause? Political progressives always strive for a more secular, legal based society, usually one in which there is some safety system to prevent suffering due to poverty, illness, or ignorance. Trying to put everyone an equal legal footing was (and still is) an uphill battle. Traditionalists see this is a “cause” or “crusade” against their values, that someone is trying to impose a way of life on them because others now have the ability to live how they choose. Those are value judgments though, and are probably irreconcilable.


I'm actuall considering authoring a book on this subject, but I don't know if anyone would want to publish it much less read it.

You should. It would be an interesting work that could find a receptive audience. A lot of what you want was advocated by one side or the other for different issues for a century in the buildup to the 1860s.

[slickdawg]

I particularly liked backing out of that Kyoto treaty that had taken ten years of work to get set up.


There were serious issues with Kyoto - we stood to be "punished" by joining.

[slickdawg]

:confused: One nuclear, chemical or biological of a significant magnitude placed in a large city in the good old USA will send our country, and the world, into chaos.


And we just welcomed a middle eastern country into the nuclear age???


:confused:

[SicEmBaylor]

And we just welcomed a middle eastern country into the nuclear age???


:confused:

India isn't a muslim nation.

[slickdawg]

India isn't a muslim nation.

No, but they hate Pakistan, which is. We added fuel to the fire.

[royalfan5]

And we just welcomed a middle eastern country into the nuclear age???


:confused:
India and Pakistan both already have nuclear capability before US intervention.

[slickdawg]

India and Pakistan both already have nuclear capability before US intervention.

My concern is the perception that we are supporting nuclear weapons
in the region. It's a hotbed; always has been, always will be.

[royalfan5]

My concern is the perception that we are supporting nuclear weapons
in the region. It's a hotbed; always has been, always will be.
We might as well support them, if they are going to blow each other up, I would just assume they do it right.

[Ike]

India isn't a muslim nation.
not as a whole, but there is a sizeable number of them (12%).




just sayin.

[Ike]

We might as well support them, if they are going to blow each other up, I would just assume they do it right.


on second thought, I do support both of them blowing each other up. just less work for us to do in the future....


path of least resistance and all....




and for the humorless of you out there, that was a joke.

[jeremy885]

not as a whole, but there is a sizeable number of them (12%).




just sayin.


France is at 10%. Does that make them muslim?

[Ike]

France is at 10%. Does that make them muslim?


are you understanding the words that I'm typing out of my keyboard?
it makes france 10% muslim. just like india having 12% muslims makes them 12% muslim.

[Harry Beanbag]

India and Pakistan both already have nuclear capability before US intervention.


And neither one of them are in the Middle East.