To say that that is my view is to completely misrepresent everything I've ever said and you know it. Do me a favor, and stop saying what I stand for, because you either are incredibly stupid and don't undertstand anything that I've posited in our arguments, or are incredibly deceiving and purposely trying to misrepresent it every time.

Well, no, because one would have to assume then that the Iraq invasion was about national security or that the opposition to the ports deal was xenophobia. I'm willing to acknowledge the latter in some cases, but the former is laughable.

You're arguing, however, on the supposed principle that the US govt should not interfere in pretty much anything. Certainly that would be considered a strong libertarian position. But only if you applied it consistently on a range of issues, which clearly you don't. When they say they're for less govt intervention, they actually mean it, and not just when it interferes with corporations.

This from the guy who JUST characterized every opposition to the ports deal as "xenophobia."

I guess that means you're either incredibly stupid or you're a liar. Either one.

Again, the issue at hand is NOT Iraq, but the ports deal. But just to indulge you for a second, the reason why the president was given a mandate by the Congress to invade Iraq WAS because of the national security interests. You may argue deception, lies, bad intelligence, etc., but that's what the mandate was based on.


Like I asked you time and time again, please do not tell me what my views are. Just because you're only hearing me talk in defense of corporations you don't like doesn't mean that's all I'm saying. It just means you're filtering everything else out.

My mistake. Some people also oppose the deal purely because it was supported by the Bush administration.

Not posting any more on this topic in response to Krem. Dislike banging head against wall. Will respond if anyone else wishes to debate the issue.

The issue isn't embargos, either, but you weren't afraid to declare your staunch opposition to them when it's, you know, actually consistent with your principle du jour. But offer an instance that contradicts and it's a "red herring."



Interesting...



So xenophobia or blind opposition to Bush, the ONLY reasons at all to oppose the port deal. Despite everything Groucho has been arguing for three pages of this thread.

Once gain, Krem, living by a different set of rules than you set up for everyone else.

I wasn't the one that brought up the issue embargos. But for you to catch that would involve, I don't know, actually reading what I wrote.

Groucho was operating under a false assumption that the U.S. Government has a vested interest in P&O operations and was operating under some sort of contractual clause. It was not.

I'm all for exerting influence using economy over guns, but the fact of the matter is there's no time in history where the former hasn't inadvertently led to the latter, so I think its time we rethink how we go about doing it. Embargoes don't work, and if we fear UAE aligning with "our enemies" there's no quicker way to do it than offer them no other alternative. If we cut off communication (economic communication included) someone else will pick it up, and it inevitably forms an us vs. them mentality we're trying to break out of. Maybe there's another way to do it that stimulates civilian movement (anyone looking to leave the country through employment and green cards working for other ports manned by the business) or hiring practices, or other standards on the international end that could empower civilian workers rather than further compound their entrenchment?

The problem is indeed that there is no solution. Every case is as different as every country. My preference is not to do business with countries that oppress their people, but my goal is to end the oppression. I don't think that just ignoring it and allowing these dictators to do whatever they want will solve the problem, and agree that sometimes you have to encourage businesses; for instance, it appears that a more open policy of trade with China is helping a bit, and hopefully we can put some restrictions on them (when Bush is gone) to allow the companies to stay...

Anyway, there is no black and white answer. Only extremists think so.

Anyhow, on the subject from a few pages back about who would be the best Democratic candidate, it seems like Mark Warner would. I expect the Dem power players to undermine him though.