holmes writes:
I'm looking for answers, particularly from Reps, and specifically Bush apologists. This is patently absurd to me, especially at this time in our history. If I am to believe this is a clash of cultures we are engaged in with democracy and human rights being our "side", why is it a good idea to allow six major ports to be run by another nation which is not a democracy and been cited for human and civil rights violations regarding its workforce?
One reason that came to mind in the skewed illogic of this administration is that by allowing a "country" to guard our ports, we can then place accountability on that country should there be a breach in security. This war of ideologies that we have chosen to fight basically is a war of allegences. If Al-Queada does an action, there is nobody to fight....if a nation does something wrong, we can have an excuse to make them accountable.
Each individual in the port company is identifiable and is linked to others... in effect, we are forcing our allies to prove themselves by being accountable.
Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
™ Version 4.2
