Drew Bedson

Just finished listening to it. I see nothing wrong with it and I'm a severe right leaning individual who believes in the Iraq invasion. It was a class on globalization, he is doing what a teacher should do - get people to think. In the speech or rant as some see it, I found a carefully constructed line of reasoning, one that Chomsky brings forth time after time - looking at the world through another prism other than your own. That is all he is asking those students to do and in fact, at the end of the sermon, he states just that. Other than bringing up the 'illegal war' there is no ranting, just strirring the pot and showing how actions CAN be construed as terrorism if you are on the recieving end when a terrorist is hiding amongst you. Oh, and there is a bit of a conspiracy theory thrown in as the US government doesn't always tell the truth and therefore, may have other reasons for actions they take. Nothing wrong there, last thing that I would want is a bunch of yes men running a think tank in the future. Listening to it again, he goes into the Israelis and the Palestinians and the history of same. He says how far back in time do you want to go? He then states that archiologists argue about who was there first. A completely open minded subject but, he didn't take a side. He did though, (shudders) introduce the fact that Israel engaged in terrorism against the British. In what was obviously (to me anyhow) an attempt to get students to think outside the box. "I may not even be right and am not even trying to take a position. I just want you to think about these issues more indepth. And, am glad you asked all your questions as they were all good questions and I hope that more people ask these." He says, or something very similar as I typed as I was listening. Then, he signs off and goes into economics of US companies stating they are profit motivated. Duh. Unbelieveable? What is unbelieveable is that here, four and a half years after the war on terror has been launched, people, even 'in the know' people such as many here on this board have no idea of how the enemy thinks and, what their objectives are. Instead, prefereing them to be thought of as nutbars and such. The fact is, they have a plan, they have a rationale that makes complete sense if you are them or from that area of the world. It is a terrifying plan that so many miss and discount thinking that the acts of terrorism here and there are only coincidental and, negating the entire strategic picture. The second Caliphate is a better than thirty percent chance of being reality. These people are fighting tremendous odds but, they have intelligence and dedication. The targets are military targets to the terrorists though. Given their belief rationale we are a democracy and hence, each of us are responsible for the actions of the government and society. See, already you don't get how the enemy thinks. Iraqi's by virtue of holding votes and participating become military targets. It is not a war of military might with clear cut sides, it's a war of philosophy and ideas. Theirs weapon is terror and, attempting to influence other's thinking so they join with them in some way. Ours, is to provide opportunity and hope by denying them free operations and erradicating wherever possible. This guy is OK in my books. If he stood up and sang the Star Spangled Banner and then said that whatever GWB did is fine with him that would make sense?

I concur. Good eye and right. If they do, then this would be a non starter for any sane westerner. However, if they change course and hide behind the P & O in this matter then I would assume that it would also demonstrate the 'arms length' type of affair it is?

Ninty in a day is about what insurgents do in a week or a slow month. From Waco to Yugoslavia: Clark Ok'd The Use of Military

You don't. You elect them on their ability to handle pressure and situations. In this case, he did not handle them in a good way. As for killing 'enemies,' Clark would have probably done a fine job except for the fallout afterwards but, I would hardly call the women and children at Waco enemies in the loosest sense.

Interesting. He kills more Americans in a day than Insurgents in a month and you think he's fit to command. Other than his Rambo style in Waco where he brought in every special forces unit ion the planet (some foriegn to boot, so why are some peopleagainst contracting US ports to foriegn companies, they give up special operations don't they?} here is a short list of his contreversial behavior; the Guardian wrote columnist Robert Novak- I liked his conciliatory speech myself. Kerry earns the respect of the nation by saying how they ran a hard campaign and wil now work towards uniting the country and Edwards pouts and vows that he will not stop until he can prove the Republicans cheated. Quite the realist. And you want him in charge? Take Uncle Krusty's advice. The Dem's are not going anywhere without Hillary. And, furthermore, she is going to be a bit more right than you want her to be. While this will piss a lot the extreme left off, so much so that you may see a party split in the near future, it's the only way she can get the core voters on the right to come over. And take my word for it, Edwards is a slip and fall lawyer, he isn't going anywhere. He's hated in North Carolina by the right - outwardly hated like the Liberals were here in Canada and only held on by deals. Deals he can't make nationally.

Correct. Working with the wrong facts is to condemn all future rationale to failure. That said, Iraq is and was, intregal to the War on Terror. The war having so many purposes and rationale that most people both pro and con can't begin to get past the rhetoric. For example, once it was proved to Saudi Arabia that the US did have the gonads to fight a full front they became so proactive that they finally did something very uncomfortable that prior to, were unwilling to risk. Begin their own War on Terror within their borders. This action has unhinged Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia so much, that they cannot function beyond token operations in Iraq. This multi approach war on Al Qaeda goes beyond these two countries as well as other nations of the area joined in. While terrorism attacks may still make headlines, Al Qaeda is being pumelled ceaselessly. If the US sat and did nothing proactive to prove they were commited, who would ever beleive they had power or position to act, support and cooperate? It was a combination of power positioning, social and political change, threat, elimination of a threat, tidying up of a problem and support of allies within the region that made this risky action so rewarding. Even if Iraq fails, many of those objectives will still be met. What is interesting is that terrorism has one tool - death and destruction. In this way, they erode a governement or entity's ability to control by denying the populace the main thing that they expect from their leaders - safety. When disturbed and minimized by being taken out, they have to act or lose ground severely, however difficult that is as part of their purpose is to project the illusion of power and the enemy's inability to constrain them. A Tet Offensive sort of action like a fighters last stand. Are the blows getting token and faster or, well calculated for maximum effect? For a world of America haters, all desires to strike within American borders, not one has succeded. That is why I believe the former.

You mean there is a 911 about to occur? What information do you have that the State Department should know. Or, did you mean what you 'thought' was safer because you didn't know about it or that it could not happen to such a degree? BTW, article here that explains much of what I and others have been trying to say all along. Shipping industry is baffled by port uproar in America

Safer compared to ........?

Lileks follow up article was a bit more realistic. Thank you. I followed the article to the interview with Admiral Craig Bone. While the interviewer was somewhat revealing in his desire to find a flaw in the security, he failed. And, I have no idea of what could convince an individual such as this to not be aphrehensive. One of the articles linked was interesting and explains much. Sad to say but Bush's publicity people should have been fired three years ago. I do. See, once youpick a side in the war on terror there is no going back. Given the make up of the Middle East and the threats from outside UAE such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, they need more friends than enemies. To them, Iran is scarier than they are to us. Sorry to say that I was wrong. They will own the land it sits on. However, to answer the question, please read the interview with the Admiral above. It will explain a lot. Well, ask the shareholders of Air Canada how they felt when the US offer of $16 per share was shit canned by the government and then a year later the company was worthless, their stock as well. Is it? What attacks have occured through these ports? What information have you that there is a 'gaping hole' through which hidious things have been leaking through. I have not heard anything good, or bad. You cannot protect a coutry from this sort of threat sorry to say. You can only decrease the possibility of something happening. For example, trucks that cross the border into the US are rarely opened up and checked, about one in ten is sent through an X ray machine. If they all were, nothing would move and guess what you next bitch would be? 'Terrorists don't exist, they are only a way to pump money into the government' So, lots can be getting through but, this is where deterence and having trained people lessen the possibility and up the risk factor for smugglers to get caught to a level where they don't do it. A container for example, that contains an item that is going to be used as a weapon is a very valuable commodity to terrorists. First, they have to assemble or produce it, or the parts thereof. Then, smuggle it to the shipping point painstakingly in parts and reassemble it into a container without being discovered. Then, get it past the security on the other end. Then, they have to make sure it is diguised and makes the journey safely and is not tampered with. Then, at the other end, they have the most valuable thing they could ever possess, even more than their lives - and sitting in the harbor in NYC. And then, after all this trouble, they have a greater than one in fifteen chance that they will lose it. With odds like that, the drug trade would fold. Now, what if they need TWO parts of the object to be assembled? That makes it one in seven or so that it will be taken from them and the entire plot exposed. I'd say 5% is pretty good and provides the detterence that is required.

I was the General in charge of kickin butt. I ran the whole frickin' show.

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press) Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go. President Bush: No, I didn't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ Bush hid, I have no doubt. Other than not providing an example for a soldier I don't see what the problem is though. Many presidents did not serve and one comes to mind that outright dodged sevice and yet, sent men to serve. And then others, who did serve, can't lead with conviction.

Dilapadator was a made up word to parody your attempt to read my mind. You don't know me or what my belifs are beyond this particular issue as can I you. I sure do. I also know that they don't show the good things either, and, don't reflect how soldiers really feel which is 'fuck this shit' grumbling in private to 'yes, we will kick ass for America' in front of the platoon Commander. In the end, they are there for each other and are proud of it, even if they do decide not to go back and don't re up. They serve neither party except, possibly the right as they do develop a hatred for the people whom they are there to serve and get desnensitized and develop contempt for same. As a former soldier you know you don't get to vote on what flavor of juice you get in the rations. He was voted in for a four year term by a majority and that is what makes it a republic. You have not provided anything other than conjecture as to what those security concerns are with this deal though. Even you know there are terrorists otherwise you wouldn't be concerned about security with this port deal. As for being friends with Saudis and whatever, do you have any understanding of how close those governments are and were to colapsing due to the radical islamic forces working within them? It's more than money to them - it's survival. And, the US has to back them up otherwise Iran will be the easiest problem to deal with.

As a matter of fact, I dislike Bush immensely as I was a soldier and know he cut our of 'Nam when good men went. I'll never forgive him for that. Side, I'm Canadian and voted independent (Paul Kelly) as my Conservative MP is out for herself and, the Consevative party is just a Left of center shell oly out to be in power for power's sake rather than reflect true conservative values. I don't join trends. Good mind reading though. Work on the dilapadator tuning though, think that's probably where it's shorting out.

Well, thank you for that Zues. I suppose that proves that there is no terrorism involved in this as members of the administration know them inside and out and have a personal interest in this. Good reporting! We can all breathe easier now.

I knew. However, true. This isn't a big deal. Every company is owned by shareholders from North America, Europe, Asia and that company has to be based somewhere. This company already manages ports where US bound goods are loaded and shipped from, thus, if they were going to do somethig terrible, they already can. With safeguards that are part of the processin order to facilitate this merger, it is actualy safer than it was before. In your world, are arabs to be excluded from this? Are they forever to be the shepherds of oil, as it dwindles with consumption? Are they to be told that they cannot join the first world because we are scared and then, try to move them further away from the fundementalists who want to pull them back to the eighth century of the calipahte? Is that the message you wish to send to terrorists and the arab world? Anybody but the 'shifless' sand people. That they now, can provide an alternative that makes sense as white people and the US in general just don't trust arabs to do anything. And, until we are cleansed off the earth, they will never get their fair share.

100% on both counts Nubie. Saudi Arabia has cracked down on Al Queda in a big way since the US Invaded Iraq. Reason? They know which side their butter is on and they have no choice, otherwise, they will fall into the sea of simmering fanaticism that is entrenched into their country. As for Bush, it really isn't that big of a deal. Where were you anti muslims and distrusters of arabs when it counted? Funny, you were against Bush then too when he was using the stick.

Easy, you do just what he did. He doesn't see things on his agenda until it has been worked on so that it becomes a 'yes/no' decision. Obviously, the lower tiers of his administration did a lot of foot work beforehand. To not do that would have been irresposible and wasted his time trying to decide on variables that may or may not happen. And, hold onto your spiked helmet Zues, but bet there are a whole bunch more preconditions that Bush and his peole didn't consult you on as well. Ranging from security of their ports elsewhere, in Dubai itself, ships crossing the ocean in international waters and cooperation in the war on terror via communications taps, banks and so on and forth. The Dubai government wants this deal and will do anything to see it through. Basicly it's a blank cheque without having to invade and take over. BTW, where are you going to go to get away from globalization? A Menonite community?

Interesting phrase for a discussion board. Possibly you should consider a blog with the settings set to 'no replies permitted.' Better tell that to the stock exchanges. US companies are entrenched in foreign markets just as foreign companies are entrenched in your country and ours. Are you proposing that the capitalistic and global world be dismatled? At what point should trade and investment stop? Middle ages? Industrial England era? Where? Ladies and gentlemen, the above is what a 'frothing right winger' is, - and, I am far right. Quotas? OK, maybe I'm wrong. Liberal frothing right wing.

I stand corrected on PSA and thank you BD. However Hutchinson, the other contender is Chinese.

Know that wasn't you as you are a friend of muslims and arabs, but, just a quote that fell from allah at the right time. And, it is racism. The company has proven themselves capable of managing over one hundred ports worldwide and you and others don't like them because two hijackers came from there, their banks were used to finance same and they recognized the taliban as did Pakestan, one of the most stalwart partners in the war on terror. The British bombers came from Britain, Red Brigade came from Japan and John Walker Lingh was from the USA. Oh, and China is communist and they would have been running the ports had DPW not bought P & O. So yes, rasicsm is an apt word. Spelling forum is down the hall, have fun! Actually, you seem to have a hair trigger here with Clinton. I think he was a fine president who also would have carried out an effective war on terror had 911 happened on his watch. I merely was showing that foreign companies running US ports was not a GWB invention. It happened in Clinton's time and well before so, to blame Bush for allowing this is pretty simple minded and smacks of a sort of political 'creationism' whereby the new era started on Jan 20 2000.

First, get the ownership word out of there. Second, between DPW, PSA and Hutchinson, they manage over four hundred foreign ports worldwide. It is not a strange thing at all as most ports are managed by international companies. As for trust, I'm sure he does. However, lets ask Clinton as it was in his time that P & O took over operations in New York. Really though, there are no US companies that can do the job as these companies are set up far better to enable it. That's right, they're Sand People. Not to be trusted. All of them. Time we showed them how we feel and make this an all White club by keeping the British in there. Oh, hang on, the British just got bought by them so let's get the Slopes from Hutchinson's in there. Yellow guys are so much more trustwrothy.

Fact. And, your Koffee Annan is no judge, nor is he part of the jury or the world judicial system known as the USNC. He is head administrator of the UN. Which renders his opinons pure conjecture. Well, finally you admit that in order to run around saying it 'is illegal' rather than 'probably,' 'likely,' or 'possibly is' a body needs to covene. I'm sure they don't care as they know the outcome anyhow but, as seen by previous examples, the UNSC does convene to put forward anti US and Israeli resolutions even when they are sure they will be vetoed. In this case, they have not, even though they have a history of condeming things such as US invasions. Just luck of the draw, were they busy that day or do they have info that counters your theory that this is illegal and may in fact be legal?

I'd say it's about even. As for quoting Michelle, what next, Savage? One thing I must say that is interesting about all this is how the Left finally acknowleges that there is an enemy to be feared. Albeit, to profile an entire race is a side the Left would rather have kept secret for a bit longer I'm sure, but, anything to get Bush. And, wrong country to boot. Aggh! They don't OWN anything but the companies that operate the ports. Nothing American is changing hands. Why them? There are no US companies that can do the job. Kinda like trying to handle the reconstruction of Iraq by Haliburton with Ottawa local builder Minto. That's not the fault of Bush, rather the way things go in a capitalistic world and, has been going on for decades. This port deal goes back at least to the Clinton era. From your Lileks Article The Shifless Sand People again. Better than the Slops right? Or worse? See, the other two bidders for P&O were both Hong Kong based (PSA and Hutchinson) both one and two respectively. DPW, (who were seventh) outbid them and are now number three in the world today. So, to a zenophobe, it either would have been armies of Yellow Men being smuggled into the USA in containers or a few guys with bombs in their turbans. Please get your facts straight. The ports are owned by the US. The workers are all Archie Bunker type Americans who may or may not hate Arabs, Orientals, Black people or whatever and are unionized. If changes are made they don't like, the port shuts down and DPW goes into the tank mode and bankrupt. The people who manage it will be British and American based companies and the overall owners of the operational responsibility of those people and companies will be DPW of Dubai, who wish to make money. The security will be provided as it is now by whatever US agency does that, not a turban wearing guy with a sword. Hence, what changes here is the money, not procedure, not security, not ownership and definitely not personel.

Been that way for decades. Their competitors for the deal were two Chinese companies. Both one and two in the port management business. Very troubling. Imagine having the most efficient and profitable entities managing your stuff. 'The horror'

Political poison? Well for koolaid drinkers I suppose. Duabai Ports is the third largest port operator in the world, and operates in dozens of countries such as Australia, Hong Kong, China, Europe, South America, India, Saudi Arabia and so on. Hardly an Al Queda nest. It is a financial deal, not a procedural one. In which the personel remain the same, doing the same things in the same way and subject to the same work and immigration laws and such. In fact, the only thing that is likely to change is Democrat blood pressure. If you walk into a Micky D's in Moscow, are the staff all sixteen year old girls from Nebraska? Nope, all Russian. the P&O which will still operate the terminals uses US labor and management and will continue to do so even under their new ownership. Your idea is an 'also ran' prize to a party that, if Bush did not go with this, would decry racism and shout that the administration was anti muslim. I am sure that the backroom deals contained more for national security assurances than a couple of bags of cheetos. Being state run by Dubai, the company may have possibly have facilitated the expedition of US bases, more proactiveness in aprehending terrorists at home and in other countries of the region, a cancellation in funding to regimes that we deem unsavory and on and on. Who knows? The main thing is that foreign ownership is here to stay in all our countries, even Muslim ones. To not allow it to go both ways is hypocrasy.