Thursday, February 23, 2006

Who can own our ports, cont.

The UAE is an oil rich country that understands that its reserves of oil will not last forever. Because of this they are investing in other businesses. One of these is the container shipping industry which is the one everyone is up in arms about at the moment. This company, Dubai Ports World, is a legitimate international business and one that understands the need for profits. Allowing their company to be used for terrorist activities would guarantee the loss of every port they currently operate in at least 13 different countries.

The UAE and the US obviously do not agree on many issues but they are the most productive of Arab supporters for the war on terrorism; they contributions have even been greater than all the EU countries combined. If we step away from the middle-eastern male stereotype then we must first prevent the sale to Canadian companies because their last Prime Minister freed a known terrorist Ahmad Said al-Khadr and Canadians still petition for the release of his son, an admitted killer of a US Army medic and terrorist, from Guantanamo. We can point out terrorist ties to many Americans too, does that mean we should prohibit American companies from buying our ports?

What I see is a debate between the informed and the uninformed. If you will look at the reports you will see that the experts on international terrorism are all saying there is no problem with the sale. Those against the sale do not see the distinction of UAE businessmen from Arab terrorists a fallacy equal to associating Bill Gates with Timothy McVeigh.

As I have said before, I have fought with UAE soldiers and know their loyalties. Do not fear; DP World is not a terrorist organization.


Show me the money!

I was shocked to see a former team-mate on Fox News this morning. I doubt he will ever see a dime from this.


Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Who can own our ports?

It has been argued that since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) we should not allow the sale of our ports to a company in the UAE. Let’s continue with this concept. Since the Shoe Bomber came from the UK, it is only right that we should insist that they sell the ports that they are trying to sell to the UAE, but who can they sell them to? Obviously not to a U.S. owned company because the Oklahoma City bombers were Americans. If you want to continue to play this game, then who can own a U.S. port? They might as well be sold to Quantas because they never crash; even the Rainman knows that.

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that allows foreign ownership of property or businesses within its borders. Although there are laws that do limit who may own businesses here, they are not based on the owner’s religious preferences or ethnicity. To block the sale based on the current public opinion/ignorance would be little different than incarcerating Americans of Japanese decent in the western U.S.

I have personally stood shoulder-to-shoulder with UAE soldiers in the Global War on Terrorism; I have been invited to their dinner table and know their men. They are loyal and valuable assets on our side of the fight and do not deserve the slander they are receiving from the general public ignorance.


Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Some Things Never Change

Congratulations to Snake Eater for identifying the writer of my last post.

As an article that could have been penned yesterday in the New York Times it is a little surprising to reveal that the Who Said This was written by Samuel Clements (aka Mark Twain) almost exactly 100 years ago. Before you finish reading his commentary read the historical account of The Battle of Bud Dajo.

Mark Twain could tell some wonderful stories, but Samuel Clements apparently had trouble identifying facts. I do not say this to reduce your view of one of our greatest novelists; I just want to illustrate the harm that can be caused by a poorly informed or miss-directed pen. Perhaps this is why he never thought the articles were ever worthy to be published.


Monday, February 13, 2006

Who Said This And When?

A prize (OK, all I can afford is an honorable mention) to the person who can identify who wrote this article and when. No cheating/no search engines.
The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred [Muslims], not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.
General [X] was present and looking on. His order had been. "Kill or capture those savages." Apparently the army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for [several] years, in our army out there.
The official report quite properly extolled, and magnified the "heroism" and "gallantry" of our troops; lamented the loss of the fifteen who perished, and elaborated the wounds of thirty-two of our men who suffered injury, and even minutely and faithfully described the nature of the wounds, in the interest of future historians of the United States…
… So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our [many] millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion — that was the President of the United States. All day, Friday, he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday, he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. If I know President [X] — and I am sure I do — this utterance cost him more pain and shame than any other that ever issued from his pen or his mouth. I am far from blaming him. If I had been in his place, my official duty would have compelled me to say what he said. It was a convention, an old tradition, and he had to be loyal to it. There was no help for it. This is what he said:
“I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the brilliant feat of arms, wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag”. (Signed) [The President].
His whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms — and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule, instead of bullets. He knew perfectly well that our uniformed assassins had not upheld the honor of the American flag, but had done as they have been doing continuously for [several] years in the [the country] — that is to say, they had dishonored it.

Stay tuned for the answer and a follow-up.

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from