Monday, March 06, 2006

Why the Ports Deal must go through

Larry Kudlow weighs in with a very compelling piece on the Ports Deal with Dubai. I herewith endorse this deal, based on its merits, since so much is at stake:

Opposing President Bush are those with a vision of pessimism, defeatism, and fear. Supporting the president are those with a Reaganite vision that brims with opportunity, victory, and success in the spread of freedom and democratization. Can there be any serious question that the resounding conservative Republican ascendancy and success of the past 25 years launched by Ronald Reagan and advanced by George W. Bush is built on optimism — and positive results? I think not.


Furthermore, I should add that it is, in my opinion, foolish and short-sighted to bemoan the virtually nonexistent economic progress in the Arab world over the past century while, at the same time, punishing those (few) companies who do succeed in today's global marketplace, simply for being Arab.




3 Comments:

Blogger Marco_Polo said...

The deal is altogether foolish because ...

a) ... the UAE are by and large a primitive country even deeply involded in slave-trade with Sudan. Allowing them participation in the management of foreign seaports will not move their society forward in substantial ways.

b) ...granting an Islamic country or companies of it access to security sensitive US infrastructure is utterly foolish if the US is for its own security actively at war with Islam. Why not hire the Palestinian authority then to organize the room service for Congress office space? The Emirates ports deal could only be done after extreme security clearance, which (to be realistic) couldn't be issued once and forever.

d) ... this decision displays a certain lack of understanding of the true nature of the enemy, that the nation is in fact facing.

e) ... in doing so the President does threaten US national security and does provides the Democrats with some good arguments in THEIR favour for any upcoming elections.

f) ... the PR image of an international arline is no necessarily correspondent to the realities within the country, where the airline is located.

But if I am proven wrong by a different outcome of the matter, I wouldn't be disappointed. :-)

12:03 PM  
Blogger Franklin D. Rosenfeld said...

Hear ye, hear ye...

ad a.

Denying them participation in the global economy will not help very much, either.

ad b.

"If the US is for its own security at war with Islam"

Which it isn't. And realistically cannot be.

ad c.

I agree.

ad d.

Which, as far as I know, is not the Dubai Ports Authority. Otherwise, allowing US warships to call port there is far more foolish.

ad e.

Maybe, but that's more of an issue for the secratary of Homeland Security and the commander of the Coast Guard.

ad f.

True. But then, a logistics company isn't necessarily, either.

11:53 PM  
Blogger Ch. Arm said...

El Presidente does not threaten the US national security, it is still the Coast Guard which is in control of the ports and which is in the position to control and check the ships coming in. Furthermore, most of the port workers are Amercian, so I can´t see the particual threat to the national security with ports being bought by an Arabian company.

3:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home