Lunch at Ostadi
I was looking at the New York Times advice on what to do in Dubai, and of the items listed, the only one I could afford was lunch at Ostadi Special Restaurant, on Mussalla Road, which is the road that leads from the Bur Dubai Ramada Hotel toward the Creek. The restaurant is about half way between the Ramada and the Creek. According to the New York Times, this is a traditional Dubai restaurant, run by people from the traditional Arabic village of Shiraz.
The recommendation turned out to be an excellent one, with great food and great service, though for a bit more than they charged the New York Times, who seem to have gotten free soup, water and tea, for which we were charged. The entrée was Dh 20 ($5.40), which the article said was the total cost of their lunch; however, our total was Dh 34 ($9.20), still well worth the price.
Given the surroundings, the conversation turned to what Bush intends to do in the short time he has remaining: attack Iran within the next month or so, attack Iran by proxy within the next month or so, wait until after the election to attack Iran, or just rattle sabres without any actual military action.
The Israeli attacks on Iraq and Syria to prevent the development of WMD were like the tiger repellent I keep in my flat: When asked, 'Why do you need a tiger repellent in your flat,' I always respond, 'Just note that you don't see any tigers in here.' So, while neither Iraq nor Syria had the capability to develop WMD, the Israeli government can take full credit for their failure to do so. It is not at all clear that an attack on Iran would be as successful.
The local news assumes such an attack is inevitable, but this is a position I do not share: Bush sent inadequately supplied US troops into Iraq to collectively avenge 9/11. The American public has shown little concern that no Iraqis were involved—after all, the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs and the Iraqis are Arabs. From 2001 until 2005, the US voters gave Bush carte blanc to punish Iraqis supported by no-bid contracts, which, I hope, has enabled him to surpass Grant and Harding in the history texts as the most corrupt president the US has ever seen, given the way he was able to use 9/11 to enrich all his friends (and, one assumes, though the evidence is strictly circumstantial, himself). And, after the voters sent him a rejection in 2006, Bush invoked the acquittal of Clinton to continue an Imperial Presidency that cannot be challenged by the Courts or the Legislature. (Mercifully, there is no way Bush can continue past 20 Jan 2009.)
But there is no obvious way that Bush can manage any profit from an attack on Iran the way he did with Iraq, so I suspect he will limit himself to rattling sabres. But if Bush figures out how to make money from an attack before 20 Jan 2009, I think he'll give it a try.
The recommendation turned out to be an excellent one, with great food and great service, though for a bit more than they charged the New York Times, who seem to have gotten free soup, water and tea, for which we were charged. The entrée was Dh 20 ($5.40), which the article said was the total cost of their lunch; however, our total was Dh 34 ($9.20), still well worth the price.
Given the surroundings, the conversation turned to what Bush intends to do in the short time he has remaining: attack Iran within the next month or so, attack Iran by proxy within the next month or so, wait until after the election to attack Iran, or just rattle sabres without any actual military action.
The Israeli attacks on Iraq and Syria to prevent the development of WMD were like the tiger repellent I keep in my flat: When asked, 'Why do you need a tiger repellent in your flat,' I always respond, 'Just note that you don't see any tigers in here.' So, while neither Iraq nor Syria had the capability to develop WMD, the Israeli government can take full credit for their failure to do so. It is not at all clear that an attack on Iran would be as successful.
The local news assumes such an attack is inevitable, but this is a position I do not share: Bush sent inadequately supplied US troops into Iraq to collectively avenge 9/11. The American public has shown little concern that no Iraqis were involved—after all, the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs and the Iraqis are Arabs. From 2001 until 2005, the US voters gave Bush carte blanc to punish Iraqis supported by no-bid contracts, which, I hope, has enabled him to surpass Grant and Harding in the history texts as the most corrupt president the US has ever seen, given the way he was able to use 9/11 to enrich all his friends (and, one assumes, though the evidence is strictly circumstantial, himself). And, after the voters sent him a rejection in 2006, Bush invoked the acquittal of Clinton to continue an Imperial Presidency that cannot be challenged by the Courts or the Legislature. (Mercifully, there is no way Bush can continue past 20 Jan 2009.)
But there is no obvious way that Bush can manage any profit from an attack on Iran the way he did with Iraq, so I suspect he will limit himself to rattling sabres. But if Bush figures out how to make money from an attack before 20 Jan 2009, I think he'll give it a try.
posted by Dubai@Random at 3:18 pm
4 Comments:
"the US voters gave Bush carte blanc to punish Iraqis supported by no-bid contracts"
Actually, this has nothing to do w/ American voters. Technically speaking, congress (who should be representing the people) vote for war-funding. Bush approval rating is the lowest of any president in the history of the U.S. right now.
"The American public has shown little concern that no Iraqis were involved—after all, the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs and the Iraqis are Arabs."
I think, contrary to when the war started, that the majority of the Americans are against the war. The problem is apathy. It's gone on for so long that the anti-war cause has lost some steam. There are plenty of Americans out there completely ignorant of the wars crimes their own president has committed, but there are also lots of well-informed Americans who are just as angry as the rest of the world.
I don't suspect Bush will invade Iran. The November elections are upon us, and his party will not want to rock the boat.
"....run by people from the traditional Arabic village of Shiraz."
I think you've got your facts wrong, buddy. Shiraz is in Iran, so it isn't either (1) Arabic or (2) a village!!
Besides, the owners of the restaurant are not from Shiraz, but rather a village in South Iran.
However, on one point you are absolutely right.....the kebabs are excellent! I've been eating their "Special Kebab" for the past 30 years, and while the price has gone up, the taste has never wavered.
Couple of remarks:
US presidential election were in 2004 not 2005. Bush won and received 286 votes, John Kerry received 251.
If Bush is a corrupted american president how one can call Dubai and its rulers? Dubai whose profits from entrepot (i.e. smuggling) accounts for 15% of its income.
Shiraz is not a village but a city with 1.3 mln people and its inhabitants are Iranians who are not and never have been arabs.
Bush wants to attack Iran? say that again? no no no.. he is still looking for the WMDs in Iraq which we still haven't found?
Post a Comment
<< Home