Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Hugo Chavez threatens bloggers | Main | The Closing of the Indian Mind »

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Canadian moonbats can rest easy

Yep… George Bush lost, the Dubai Ports World will transfer the ports that they would have run as part of their takeover of P&O to a US Entity #. Thats what really mattered didn’t it?  While we all point south and question we never look to the west:

In Canada, DP World operates the Port of Vancouver.

That’s why most Canadian moonbats make me laugh. Face it, you hate the way he talks, you hate the way he walks, you simply hate. It doesn’t matter if our country does the same damn thing. You know who you are.

Posted by Darcey on March 9, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834af7c9d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Canadian moonbats can rest easy:

Comments

Squeeze me ? 'twas the Republicans what scuttled that deal

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=360182006

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-03-09 9:55:42 PM


In 1997 the Communist Chinese government took over the Long Beach Naval Air Base, the only major deep water port that can take large ships on the west coast. In 2000, the Communist Chinese, Hutchinson Whampoa which is run by the PLA, took over the Panama Canal and has stationed between 15,000 and 30,000 troops at the facility.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/230206portsellout.htm

This is what Slick Willy did when he was POTUS.

I think this influenced the decision to stop Dubai.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-09 10:24:37 PM


Speller, I think you dropped your tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-03-09 10:30:24 PM


It was democracy in action. R & D's came together and denouced the deal. Speller - tack in the panama canal

Posted by: Darcey | 2006-03-09 10:32:59 PM


Did anyone click the link? How about this one.

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html

I only wear my aluminum foil hat in the summer.

It keeps the rain off in thunder storms and aluminum doesn't rust.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-09 10:50:34 PM


How about this one.
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/chinesegot.html

It looks bad to me.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-09 11:02:23 PM


We hate him?

No, we love his huge deficits, his assaults on civil liberties, his new massive bureaucracies, his big-government philosophy, and his increasing centralization of power within the executive branch, for we are conservatives!

Posted by: What's not to like? | 2006-03-10 12:21:26 AM


Try to tell a Canadian that we should worry about our port security. "No one wants to attack Canada...we stayed out of Iraq". BAAHAHAHAHA tell that to James Loney, tell that to Georges Malbrunot. But wait..."They won't attack us, there's too many Muslims in Canada." BAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA tell that to the London Underground.

Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-03-10 8:28:17 AM


"No, we love his huge deficits, his assaults on civil liberties, his new massive bureaucracies, his big-government philosophy, and his increasing centralization of power within the executive branch, "

Let's hear it for smaller government!!
Why don't YOU face it Darcey, Bush has laboured hard AGAINST traditionally conservative ways of good government (that is he's INCREASED its powers) that the only reason you support him is cause DADDY BUSH is fighting towlheads and you get a woody every time he speaks.


**Oh and sorry about the spelling of 'laboured', I know adding the 'u' makes me 'anti-American' around here.

Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-10 9:17:54 AM


If the "u" fits, wear it.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-10 9:45:08 AM


I'm with "whats not to like" on why
G.Bush is bad for the whole conservative movement.

Fiscal conservatives like Ronald Reagan go for smaller govt, lower taxes and actually listen to arguments for keeping govt out of people's lives as they go about their businesses, creating jobs and driving the economy.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but RR settled the hash of Moammar Quaddafi in Libya by flying over and dropping a few choice bombs on some targets in Libya.

Suddenly Libya settled right down. Quaddafi had been escalating his rhetoric for some time, inciting anti American fervor in the Arab community and suddenly

with no major loss of American life, no big espensive invasion into Iraq, and hey presto Quaddafi just settled right back down.

He remains containerized and relatively quiet with an ongoing reminder from the US in the form of some ships monitoring all incoming and outgoing communications.

(Afghanistan should NOT be lumped in with Iraq, the causes were very different and I think Bush was more than justified by the action in Afghanistan, and that IS actually an appropriate response similar to the Libya response)

Ronald Reagan was an American president that I respected and thought had some very good approaches to things.

Now THERE was a conservative!

Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-10 10:04:47 AM


Er, actually Bush was at odds with most of the Republicans on this issue, and had the full backing of much of the Mainstream Media -- The Daily Show writers must have burst a blood vessel.

Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-03-10 10:21:49 AM


I think this is a bad decision because the UAE is an ally in the War On Terror. What caused the bad decision?

Part of it has to do with the politically correct MSM not giving the public a proper analysis of who’s the enemy in the WOT. Therefore the public is confused and de facto now starting to profile all Arabs under the same swinging light bulb.

Another part is the Pat Buchanan isolationist thinking on trade from the conservative side. On the Democrat side there has always been the drag from unions who oppose free trade. Going into elections this may turn out to be a very messy issue of conflating Security issues with free trade.

Who knows? Those that have been complaining about American imperialism, pre-emptiveness etc, may get their wish.

Canadian Freedom, you make some good observations. Maybe future wars will only be executed by the Air Force. Maybe Americans are reaching a point where they will no longer stomach the risk of troops on the ground trying to fight and nation build at the same time. So bomb and leave?


Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-10 11:01:09 AM


bomb and leave?

hmm based on results in Libya, yes. From a standpoint of ending something with a minimum of deaths on BOTH sides, including innocent children yes.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible. Nobody could argue that bombing was a great choice.

But at that point, it saved a lot more lives that would have been lost.

Sometimes you need to look at the lost opportunity cost as it is called in accounting.

Which means the costs that would have happened if you'd done it the other way.

I think bombing anyone is a horrible choice, but when terrorism leaves no choice, it may actually be the least expensive option in terms of lives lost on both sides.

Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-10 11:20:22 AM


Cff, you have logic there. But when we have the ME that is tribal and its population has grown from 80 to 300 million in 25 years (not sure I have the stats exact), if we don’t nation build, many will end up on our shores. There are 1.3 billion Muslims, they are multiplying. How are these people going to assimilate into an industrial age when they don’t believe in the equality of the sexes or the separation of mosque and state?

For example, imperialistic countries like France used to go into North Africa, do their thing and leave. Now the folks in the colonies are leaving and heading to France and we saw what happened with the Car-B-Q’s.

In other words I just don’t know if we can simply bomb our way out of this mess. This is a war with a movement, not a war on country like Japan or Germany.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-10 11:37:45 AM


Of course "we" can't bomb "them" into leaving us alone. Hitting Qaddafi with a few bombs worked, settled him down, because he's the all-powerful leader of a rigidly centralized state -- and a guy who doesn't want to die (or lose power). Al Qaeda is the polar opposite -- a cell-based distributed network powered by a crazed ideology whose loyal adherents welcome death as a certain route to Paradise and seventy fuckable virgins -- and bombing just drives recruits towards it.

The entire WOT is based on a huge, fundamental misapplication of means to ends. We should be applying very selective police and intelligence work to destroy known terrorists, sure. But the last thing we ought to be doing is bombing or invading Muslim countries. That's just poking a flaming stick into a hornet's nest.

Instead, we ought to be beaming overwhelming amounts of secular information at them -- TV, radio, Internet, samizdat -- explaining the origins of religions in general and theirs in particular (it's a riff on old-testament angry-god hellfire-and-damnation Judaism recycled by a seventh-century megalomaniac named Mo with himself in the central and final prophetic role). We should be explaining anthropology, sociology, biology, evolution, world history, the virtues of civil society, reason, critical thinking and dispassion -- the whole nine enlightenment yards.

The quest should be to dry the swamp of religious superstition, and hence the domestic support for the terrorists.

By the way, the Qu'ranic obsession is not a peaceful religion 'misunderstood' by the fundamentalists - it is uncompromisingly totalitarian and intolerant. Give the Qu'ran a read sometime. It's just a rant promising (over and over and over, ad nauseum) 'unbelievers' eternal hellfire and 'the Rightly Guided' (i.e. those who take Mo at his word) eternal paradise. It's an exercise in very crude and regrettably very effective totalitarian mind-control using a very simple dualism: believe Mo, and go to Paradise; disbelieve him, and burn in hell for all eternity with no possibility of reprieve. I'm not exaggerating. Go take a look.

We have to stop pretending the religion isn't the enemy, or blathering about 'moderate' Muslims. 'Moderate' Muslims exist, but in order to be a moderate Muslim, you have to not take the Qu'ran at face value. There's nothing in the least bit moderate about it. It's a totalitarian rant from end to end.

Posted by: Raindrinker | 2006-03-10 1:56:53 PM


Flaming sticks work wonders on hornets nests. I know I've done it.

I wonder what the human equivalent would be with the Muslims. I also wonder who, beside the multicult leftist traitors, would stand by the Muslims in that scenario? I say, "Nobody."

I don't think Muhamet, if he were alive today, would agree that there are any moderate Muslims. I believe Muhamet would find Osama bin Laden to be exactly his type of follower.

As long as there are Korans and Islam there will be Osama bin Ladens.

They just want to emulate Muhamet their prophet.

Christians are always saying they want to be more like Jesus.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-10 2:27:00 PM


Raindrinker, you sound like my barber, from Cyprus, who ranted for over 20 years to me pretty much what you are saying. Frankly at the time I thought he was a little over the top, until 9/11, then I realized he was right about a lot of things.

Young males everywhere are a problem. Young males without jobs, a bigger problem. Unemployed young males taught only the Koran from childhood and promised 72 virgins are outright dangerous.

Agree, we need to do all the anthropological stuff you mention. We also have to get their economies going and get those young lads jobs so that they have less time and energy to think about virgins. Not much difference than the approach of Rudy Giuliani in Harlem and the Bronx.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-10 2:47:58 PM


Nomdenet:

Yep. We're on the same page.

Posted by: Raindrinker | 2006-03-10 4:57:26 PM


The original deal between Dubai World Ports and P&O was to transfer all of P&O's North American operations to DWP. Since they are now going to resell the American operations to an American company, presumably the Dubai company is still going to take over P&O's Canadian assets. That means that marine terminals in Canadian cities other than Vancouver could soon be run by the Arab-owned company.

BTW, it's not accurate to say they "run the Port of Vancouver". What they do is operate some terminals inside it. The overall operation is run by the quasi-governmental Vancouver Port Corporation, which is responsible for security. Hey, remember when the Chretien government disbanded the Ports Canada Police? Such a brilliant move, n'est-ce pas? Incidentally, there's one current federal politican who knows quite a lot about how the port works and what needs to be done to improve and secure it. That would be David Emerson.

Posted by: CJ | 2006-03-10 5:04:08 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.