Xenophobia? That's What You're Going With?

[kpete]

Xenophobia? That's What You're Going With?
by Hunter

Let's talk, for a moment, about the emotional baggage of this debate. You know what? Yes. This UAE "deal" makes me angry.

....................

I have to remove my shoes to get on a damn plane, in the name of national security, but a country whose royals met with Bin Laden in an Afghanistan-based "hunting" camp in 1999 gets to manage how the shipping containers move around at six of our nation's ports. And I'm supposed to be damn glad for the corporate-state inclusiveness.

I'm expected to put up with the notion that my phone may be tapped by my government -- without warrant or recourse -- because some guy who once called his cousin who once visited Afghanistan may have called the takeout desk of a Pizza Hut ten minutes before I did some random Sunday, thus "linking me with potential terrorists" -- but a nation whose assistance in stopping the financing of terrorists has been, historically, lukewarm at best is alarmed that they might be barred from financial profit in one specific sector of American industry with substantial national security implications.

I'm expected to understand that the War on Terror requires executive powers unlimited by check or balance, but one of the three nations on the entire planet to recognize the horrific and loathsome Taliban government of Afghanistan, while continuing to not recognize the state of Israel, is going to be upset if there are, God help us all, financial and diplomatic consequences for those actions upon one of their state-owned businesses.

Yeah. Notice a running theme here? If I or anyone from my family met with Bin Laden in 1999, I'd be in an offshore prison camp right now, with a bag over my head and recovering from the latest glowstick session. But if I'm a multinational corporation owned by a monarchy with those same ties, I'd have Republicans, pundits, hired consultants, financial advisors and erectile dysfunction spokesmen singing my praises in every newspaper, television show, and governmental body -- and telling folks like me that we're goddamn racist pricks for even bringing the issue up.

To use a term that is not used in our ever-so-insufferable political debate:

Bullshit. I'm calling shenanigans on that. Everybody get your brooms.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/24/17316/7722

[stepnw1f]

1. Well Said... BRAVO!

Great post...

[Frank Cannon]

2. Being labeled a racist or xenophobe by a right-winger...

is just so dang knee-slapping funny that I somehow can't find a way to get angry about it.

[babylonsister]

3. Spot on-thanks! nt

[file83]

4. Your best point is the last paragraph!! People that had anything to do

with terrorist organizations what-so-ever (even those that didn't!) prior to 9/11 were hawled off to prison camps all over the globe to be tortured/interrogated with out any legal recourse and ARE STILL THERE - yet the leaders of UAE that met with Osama Bin Laden get a multi-billion dollar business contract!?

Why weren't all the people in the prison camps offered the same chances of "changing there position" after 9/11? Why?

I agree with you 100% on this issue. It's going to take the UAE a lot more than 4.5 years of allowing the U.S. to base some of our Navy ships in their ports for me to feel "comfortable" with them getting such large business rewards.

The Navy ships deal is WHAT THEY OWE THE U.S. for us not completely bombing the shit out of their country right after 9/11. THEY OWE the U.S., not the other way around!!! They are lucky to have us porting our ships in the UAE. That helps provide them with security - and for that we owe them something? Preposterous!

[kpete]

6. Thanks file83

and welcome.

I do have to point out - I am just a cut and paster.

I do not write - I post

I look for interesting articles that give DUers (and others) insight

Info makes us think - it makes us smarter

I can NEVER get enough

[bleever]

16. An A-Number One "cut and paster".

:thumbsup:

[file83]

17. LOL - I didn't even notice that....Good cut and paste anyway!

[killbotfactory]

10. That was before 9/11!!!!!!

You know, back when Osama was only the number one most wanted man by our government, and republicans didn't give a crap about him.

[High Plains]

24. What a load of crap!

The UAE "owes" the US for "not completely bombing the shit out of their country"? That's a barbaric statement.

[file83]

30. A barbaric statement - of course it is: Bombing Iraq was barbaric.

So what is your point? That the U.S. doesn't have barbaric policies? Or that Iraq deserved the bombing more than the UAE did?

If any other country besides Afghanistan should have been taken over and had it's leaders removed from power, it should have been the UAE, not Iraq. The UAE was irrefutably working with Osama Bin Laden and was one of only 3 countries on the planet that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate ruling party of Afghanistan.

So, yes, the UAE owes the U.S. a debt of gratitude for us being so "forgiving" of their involvement with the very people that attacked us on 9/11.

My point is that declaration that the U.S. owes the UAE a multi-billion dollar contract is the real "load of crap!",.

What's yours? That we are supposed to be hospitable and generous to governments that work closely with our sworn enemies? I'm sure you'll disagree with that guess, so why don't you state your point instead of leaving everyone guessing.

[High Plains]

34. My point is that I think you vastly overstate the connections

between the UAE and Al Qaeda and then use it for some chest-thumping, "gotta bomb somebody" posturing.

Of course, the US doesn't "owe" UAE a port contract. The US has a port contract with P&O, which was bought out by DubaiPorts World (not "the UAE"). The US could breach that contract, I suppose, and I imagine that DPW could then sue for damages. But given that there is no credible evidence that having DPW run operations as US ports poses any threat to US national security and I am fairly confident no such evidence will emerge even after the 45-day investigation, we might as well quit hyperventilating and and okay the deal. Again.

[file83]

36. You obviously have not looked into the connections between the UAE

and Al Qaida, because the connections that I stated are not even being debated by UAE nor the WH. They admit to it, but claim that because the UAE "changed their position" after 9/11 by becoming an "ally in the war in terror" through allowing the U.S. to dock some Navy ships at their ports, that somehow erases their past wrong doings.

You are somehow compelled by that arguement the WH is presenting, but I find it weak and completely illogical. It's also, as I have pointed out at the beginning, totally inconsistent with the way the Bush Administration has treated vast amounts of "detainees" that were suspected of having ties with terrorism and with how we invaded Iraq.

This administration is corrupt and this preferential treatement they are giving the UAE just further underscores this point. It is unacceptable to let this corruption put our National Security at risk the way it did to our country on 9/11.

[Sparkman]

64. Just look at illegal Gitmo operation & the OIL-driven-military psychos

AND you'll confirm this country is ruined. How long will it take for the world to trust the U.S. again? Nazi Germany had to be .... before that threat was ***. Just who's listening IS important, keep it on the down low.

[skids]

5. They are running a play out of the immigration handbook.

The ports issue and the illegal immigration issue have a whole lot in common -- border security versus port security, illegal workers versus globalist outsourcing... but what it lacks is poor Mexicans. BushCo is trying to jam the UAE Arabian population into that role -- the role that has so successfully muddied the illegal immigration issue for so many years. I don't think that's going to work at all.

[Zhade]

75. It seems to be working HERE, sadly.

NT!

[regnaD kciN]

7. The problem is, they're absolutely correct...

The left's opposition to this deal is based on the fears of the "Ay-rab" as boogeyman. Not about specific Arab governments -- no, that exists at the level of concepts and ideas, not the prior and all-important realm of images -- but about the pre-conscious image of the generic "Ay-rab" as animalistic, malevolent, Koran-chanting terrorist whose sole driving force is hatred for "our freedoms." The "rag-head camel jockey" (or, when people are less careful about appearing PC, "camel-f*ck*r") who needs the West to "civilize" him, no matter how many bullets, bombs, or years of occupation it may take.

The point the right-wing talking-heads are studiously avoiding is that it is they themselves who did their hardest to imprint this image on the American (sub-)consciousness, and it is their own followers who are driven by it to a far greater extent.

But we should not deny the obvious -- that this anger and stereotyping against a country which has been, for better or worse, a suppporter of the U.S. and its policy at least since prior to the first Gulf War, is driven mainly by this subconscious fear and hatred of "The Ay-rab," just as prior European civilizations were driven by a similar fear and hatred of "The Jew." And, this time, we're no better about it than anyone else.

[glitch]

8. Why should that matter? It didn't matter when they were absolutely wrong.

That's the thing about relying solely on perception and not on any core reality.
They're hoisted.

[stevietheman]

9. DEAD WRONG. n/t

n/t

[BeFree]

11. Wrong

And backwards, too. You must be looking at this from the other side, Nick.

Quote:
But we should not deny the obvious -- that this anger and stereotyping against a country which has been, for better or worse, a suppporter of the U.S. and its policy at least since prior to the first Gulf War, is driven mainly by this subconscious fear and hatred of "The Ay-rab," just as prior European civilizations were driven by a similar fear and hatred of "The Jew." And, this time, we're no better about it than anyone else."

They support GW*, not my US. * wasn't even elected! And what policy is it of *'s that they do support? War, starvation and torture? Sorry, if they do support such things then they can go to hell for all I care.

The thing is; * stepped in it and now it's all over him. No one on this board should raise one finger to help clean it off of him.

[July]

12. I don't think so.

The "Ay-rab" boogeyman fear is theirs, and theirs alone. They've been using it since 9/11 to keep Joe Stupid in line.

We object to this deal for the obvious reasons, and we'd object if it were France, Australia, or Japan that was taking an important role in running our ports while being the home of some of those who attacked us, the pals of bin Laden, the financers of terrorism, the transit point for drug-running and the nuclear black market, etc. It's a security risk, and, while I personally am not as freaked out as the average Republican is on the security issue, it's just plain incompetence, AGAIN, for the Bushies to think this would be an acceptable measure.

[Wordie]

23. um, both the US and Germany WERE the home of some who attacked us.

And some of the stuff you quote is just making the previous posters points. These things aren't as black and white as they are being portrayed as being.

For instance, why not also mention that the US considered bin Laden an ally, and reports say he received US funding and support when he was fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. The US later did an about-face and realized that bin Laden was a danger, but can we really blame the UAE royals for not making the switch as fast as we did? And do you have any reliable information that proves that the UAE was a "financer" of terrorism? Or is it just that they happened to do banking there, prior to 9/11. After all, they also did banking here in the US prior to that date, too.

You may not realize you are repeating talking points with a lot of this material, and that you have been spun. Many of the inflammatory claims about the UAE just shrivel up and fade away when they are exposed to logical scrutiny.

[mac56]

25. Sooooo....you WANT this deal to go through?

Please elaborate.

[Wordie]

26. I think what I want is for the deal to be evaluated on it's actual merits,

instead of some of the emotionalism that I've seen in recent days.

I believe there is a lot I still don't know. How exactly does the port work, for instance, and how would the DWP deal typically affect the overall port operations. I don't have a clear picture of exactly what niche the company would fill, and what are the other functions and who are the other players in the port. Do you have a clear idea of that?

I've seen a tremendous amount of misinformation, both in the msm and here at DU as well. I just want to know the truth (as much as it is ever possible to know the truth), and have the misinformation thoroughly debunked, no matter where it comes from.

I'm glad there's going to be a delay, but at the same time I'm concerned that the politicizing of the debate has now gotten to such a heightened level, that we may never know for sure what the true merits (if any) of this deal may be.

I'm still on the fence, I guess you could say. Although I recognize many of the arguments against the deal as being very biased and misleading, I want to know more before being able to say yea or nea.

[mac56]

29. Sooo.....you want there to be an option for this deal to go through.

Is that more accurate?

[July]

37. Sorry, not buying what you're selling. nt

[The Magistrate]

13. You Say This, Sir, Like It Were A Bad Thing

In the abstract it probably is, but as a matter of practical politics in the present moment, it is a boon from heaven. The hatrede and fear of Arabs is something that has been deeply rooted in our body politic, and most assiduously driven home in the last several years by the present administration. This offers an opportuniity to turn it against them, using languabge and imagery anyone, even the most benighted rightist, will understand and respond to. It is the direction people are moved to that matters most, not the reason why they move in that direction. This will lessen support for the present regime, and weaken their "we will defend you at all costs" image, upon which they are dependent for political support. We must not be squeamish about the tools employed....

"To desire an end is to desire the means needed to achive it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Wordie]

27. So you're suggesting further stirring up bigotry against arabs as a way to

defeat Bush? Perhaps you've not fully considered that position, as it seems not worthy of a progressive person. I'm all for going after Bush with both barrels blazing, but it seems to me that we could come up with a way to exploit Bush's weaknesses (which are becoming increasingly apparent to everyone, even RWers), without considering arabs as "collateral damage." Our treatment of them as such has done much to create many of the problems we have with them in the first place.

[mac56]

28. I'm able to distinguish between the ruling families of the UAE

and "all Arabs".

I think most sentient Americans can too.

I'm sick to death of the xenophobe card. I refuse to be shamed into acceptance of this.

Add on edit: And I really, really, really don't care if I hurt the precious feelings of the UAE royal families.

[The Magistrate]

31. You May, Sir, Safely Assume Me To Have Thought Out My Positions

Nor does whether my views seem morally superior to someone else's or not much concern me: what does concern me is political effect, and to have political effect, one must deal with the circumstances actually existing, not those one wishes were in place. The business is an ugly one, and perhaps the deepest, strongest, and most reliable political motivator is fear and hatered for the foriegner. In this particular instance, that motivator works to our advantage. It should be pressed home ruthlessly.

[Wordie]

33. Are you being ironic??? Surely you can't really be advocating

the complete abandonment of Democratic principles in order to "win." If Democratic values are abandoned to the point of becoming unrecognizable, or worse yet, to closely mirror those of our opponents, solely in order to "win," then please tell me what is it exactly that we really would be winning, anyway? And for whom?

[The Magistrate]

53. In My Age And Condition, Sir, Irony Is Quite Beyond Me

What we would be winning would be the expulsion of the other side from office, and the installation of our people instead. When in office, in a majority, and or in charge of the Executive, it is possible for us to enact the policies we desire, and prevent the enemy from enacting and maintaining their's. That is the point of the exercise. If our policies are good and beneficial to the people, our victory will be to the people's benefit, and that regardless of how it was achieved.

[Wordie]

61. Sort of a political "bait and switch"???

I'm all for being pragmatic, not going out on a limb, and thinking strategically, but the deliberate attracting of xenophobes, as you are proposing, just goes to far. You could only attract them, after all, by having Dem leaders make xenophobic statements. How many would we lose were we to try a move like that?

You'd lose me.

[The Magistrate]

67. Why Would We Lose You, Sir?

You know the purpose of the manouver, after all. If you examine the carreers of the great successful revolutionists and radicals, it should become quite clear that flexibility in tactical line is an essential ingredient in successful achievement of a strategic goal, and the discipline displayed by adherents of any successful radical movement maintains concentration on that goal, and ruthless and wholehearted utilization of the most promising tactical line at any moment.

Nor is it necessary to make xenophobic statements, at least not overt ones. The ground is already prepared for that, not only in the polity but the individual psyche. All that is necessary is to lay stress on the various connections between this particular emirate and leading individuals and finances of al Queda, and the Pakistani nuclear renegade. These are undeniable facts, that upset the people quite justly, and there is no need to white-wash or over-look them, nor is any good gained to our side by doing so.

A xenophobic bigot's vote counts just as much as anyone else's, and will be totalled into someone's column at the end of election day.

If you wish to attract only votes from the saintly, you will continually post a decided minority of the populace....

"Revolution is not a tea-party."

[Wordie]

71. Just curious...but are you a big fan of Michael Ledeen?

You know, the RW neocon who spouts nonsense that sounds an awful lot like what you've just written there? He himself is a great fan of Machiavelli, and if you recall, was implicated in Iran-Contra and more recently has been a great booster of the Iraq war, not to mention advocating spreading war throughout the middle east. His ends-justify-the-means beliefs sound curiously like your own.

Not my cup of tea, personally.

[The Magistrate]

78. You Know, Sir

The idea that any of this is particularly new, or tied to any particular side or even particular personality both amazes and amuses me. More to the point, it seems fairly clear from your comments that you have no interest at all in successful political activity, and rather prefer to shelter in the impotence of minority status, in which loud squeals of complaint and rage can be made, but nothing can be actually accomplished. There is no accounting for taste, of course, which varies greatly from person to person.

Another item it occurs to me wonder over is what possible advancement you think is brought to the discussion by bringing into it this Ledeen creature. It is, of course, really nothing but a roundabout way of accusing me of being a rightist, and that sort of thing is tantamount to a confession of failure, and even bankruptcy of imagination, in a conversation such as this in this forum. If you feel that only rightists pursue their ends with ruthless concentration on what is necessary to achieve them, then we are simply back to the position above, namely that you really have no interest in political success at all. For the fact is that leaders and movements which succeed in achieving their ends all behave in similar fashion, regardless of their positions on the polical spectrum, just as all animals which must swim swiftly in open water for long stretches have a similar shape. It does not seem to me it is necessary to be dedicated to perpetual failure to be a person of the left....

"To desire an end is to desire the means necessary to its achievement."

[Wordie]

82. Nah, it's just that you both apparently are great admirers of Machiavelli,

and seek to emulate him. Your writing sounds much like Ledeen's.

Come on...the unending fanning of flames of fear and prejudice - the constant lies - is just the thing that has caused so many of us to revile and ridicule GWB. Yet you see this as a "winning" strategy? And now that the exposure of those lies is having some effect, you suggest that we ourselves backtrack, and use lies and half-truths as our primary approach?

Should we press the advantage that we have now to make strides based on the new awakening of the populace that GWB won't keep us safer??? Certainly. But we have such a multitude of ways of doing that without using demagoguery, that again, I am baffled at why you would want to "win" against the Republicans by becoming them. Do I think the Dems either are or should be "pure"? Nah. Your attempts to paint this as a black and white issue are just an example of your application of your win-at-all-costs philosophy to this discussion as well. One can tailor the argument to the audience, and develop ways to convince them, without sacrificing one's principles.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. --George Orwell

[The Magistrate]

84. Have You Ever Read Machiavelli, Sir?

Have you any familiarity with Rennaisance Italy, the melieu to which his writings apply? It seems to me you merely wave the name about, along with some others, as a mere "bad thing" that serves to smear, in your view. You have at least backed off the most scurrilous and current of those, thpugh it would be my guess that is not owing to any real recognition of the ludicrousness of attempting to apply them to me.

Again, your position in this matter boils down to a claim that you are better than other people, and that there is some positive good in eschewing the use of an effective weapon put ready in your hand. That is not the way successful strategists and tacticians opperate. Successful strategists and tacticians appreciate what the actual circumstance is, what the tools available in it are, and employ the latter in the manner that can be most effective in the former. To accuse someone of wanting to "win at all costs", as if that were a bad thing, remains no more than a frank confession of having little interest in winning at all, and indeed being quite content wth failure, as long as some illusory moral superiority can be claimed in defeat. It is an attitude that is profoundly frivolous, and displays an absolute disregard for outcomes and their consequences.

The problem with your line in this matter is that you refuse to recognize what it is that has led to this "new awakening" among the people concerning our nation's security. It is precisely the contrast between the popular distaste for and distrust of "Arabs", and the ceding control of a vital interest to Arab proprietors, that has creating this. Without that deep-seated popular feeling, the opportunity would not exist. Nor can it be exploited fully without use of that deep-seated popuar feeling.

[Wordie]

87. Well, you clearly apply your philosophy to debating here at DU...

You seem to be intent on absolutely demolishing arguments that I just haven't made! :rofl: I backed off what? Where did I claim that I'm better than others? Disregard for outcomes and consequences? How would you know, since we have yet to engage in any meaningful discussion of such?

I want to discuss; you want to win a debate. I just don't think the all-or-nothing philosophy you espouse is the solution; it's just a more-of-the-same strategy. I'm in favor of developing a strategy that might have equal merits but not the disadvantages of yours, which are significant. I want the Dems to lead not foolishly exploit the xenophobic mob in an effort to grovel for votes. Your focus on win-lose has blinded you to any other opportunity, imho. It's too bad; you're clearly highly intelligent. What creative approaches to exploiting this situation without fanning the flames of bigotry could a fine mind such as yours develop, if it were to be willing to step away from the old way of doing things? Since you're clearly completely unwilling to consider abandoning your win-lose approach, either in this thread, or in approaching the larger question, it's clear there's little point in continuing this further.

And btw, yes, I've read some Machiavelli...

[The Magistrate]

88. As You Wish, Sir

My narrowness of focus, propensity for black and white thinking, and utter lack of nuance in view are legend in these parts....

"So, have you ever heard the one about the dog who caught the bus?"

[BeFree]

58. Democratic Principles

And what Democratic Principles were followed in making the decision?

Our representatives were not informed about the coming decision. The decision was made without any public airing. The decision was not a Democratic decision, it came down more as a Royal Decree. Just another in a long line of Royal Decrees that have been spewing from the Bush Royal Family for far too long.

And you are trying to make them look good, imo. That's not good.

[rman]

48. lies and disinfo working to our advantage

"most reliable political motivator is fear and hatered for the foriegner"

not really a surprise, coming from you.

[The Magistrate]

51. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Do you quarrel with the statement as a matter of fact, based on a knowledge of political history?

[rman]

59. Machiavelli, Strauss, Nazis, Neocons...

yes i do.

[The Magistrate]

69. Flattery Is Always A Joy, Sir

A casual observer might gather the impression you are equating me a Nazi....

[rman]

76. Nah, it's just that you say things simmilar

to what certain Nazis have said.

[The Magistrate]

77. Do You Like Jelly Omletes, Sir?

[never cry wolf]

32. Maybe, just maybe

this will open the eyes of the blind * supporting xenophobes who have been led down the path of fear and hate of muslims/arabs by this admin and they will realize how much of a hypocrite the boy king really is.

[Wordie]

35. Will we then invite them to come join the Dems, so we can have a

(Pyrrhic) victory over the RW, by becoming them? (Sorry, I'm just a little disappointed by some of the things some are saying about this situation.)

I surely hope that those fools who supported Bush do realize their error, but I sure hope that they either revise their values, or just refuse to vote, or something like that. I hope we as Dems don't start now attracting people like that.

[The Magistrate]

52. That Sentiment, Sir

Is contrary to any desire for political success, measured anyway in terms of holding office in an electoral democracy. Politics is a business of addition, not subtraction. Why a person votes for my candidate as opposed to the other side's is quite immaterial to me; the point of the business is to get the other side's people out of office, and ours in. If our policies then enacted are good ones, people will feel benefited by them, and come to support those who enact them owing to that cause, and not some other. That may lead to a change of heart on the part of some over time....

[Wordie]

60. You seem to be neglecting one crucial point in that analysis...

and that is that by bringing people over to "our" side, we redefine "our" side. Those that we bring in have values that then also affect, for instance, which candidates are selected, and what the platform should be. Just look how dramatically the Republicans' overtures to the religious fundamentalists have changed their party over the last couple of decades. Think about it; is that what we want?

No, I say we have to stand for something. And let that stand attract the right people to our side, people who share our values. The shameful willingness to wallow in the latest muck is a large part of the problem, not a solution.

So many non-voters, when asked why they don't vote, say that exactly the sort of thing that you propose is the reason. They are turned off by the candidates' willingness to do and say anything in order to garner votes.

You're advocating for a pyrric victory.

[The Magistrate]

70. That Seems A Limited View To Me, Sir

By bringing people over to our side, do we not open to them the possibility of their being altered to our direction, and finding, to their own surprise, they have many points of agreement with us? If what our officials do brings them benefit, is this not a conceivable, even a likely, result?

The excuses given by people for not participating in the political process do not impress me. They are never the products of serious thought and consideration, but merely the sort of irritable noise people make when they are condronted over something know they are shirking, and that they know they ought to do, and are a little ashamed of not doing. Politicians do and say what is necessary to gain office just like salesmen do and say what is necessary to book an order: it is the essential element of the trade, and to complain of it is to complain that a man wears his hat on his head and his shoes on feet.

[Lilith Velkor]

80. The moral high ground is so much more important

than Baltimore. :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

41. Spoken like a true heir to Geobbels.

Jesus fucking Christ, LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

You're saying it's okay to promote bigotry against Arabs, as long as it benefits us politically.

That's fucking disgusting. I can't believe you!

[The Magistrate]

54. It Is Already Promoted, Sir, And Even Firmly Established

As a fact of the situation, it is to be employed when benefit can be derived from it. To press at any volumn the line that opposition to the port sale is mere bigotry is simply to do the enemy's work for him in the immediate circumstance, as well as to convince large numbers of the people yet again that left activists are something foreign to the ordinary folks of the country, who do not take the people's concerns seriously....

[Wordie]

65. But those "ordinary folks" have those attitudes because they've been spun

by Bush/Rove! Remember "terra terra terra"???

Who is it who is really playing into Bush/Rove's hands here? You're allowing them a victory by virtue of their having brainwashed so much of our population with fearmongering tactics that have them thinking all middle easterners are terrorists. That this tactic is now backfiring on them doesn't mean we should suddenly decide to play along with the spin.

Jeez! Keep your eye on the ball. Why accede to these tactics?

There is another opening here which is much more ripe for exploiting into a win for the Dems. The controversy has shined a bright light on the insufficiency of our port security in general, for reasons that have little to do with the Dubai World Ports deal, in and of itself. Why don't we run with that instead? Kerry is on record as having pressed Bush on the issue during the election. We should be demolishing further the "ordinary folks" idea that Bush will keep us "safer," but we don't have to engage in demagoguery to do it. If we focus on the larger issue of why has the Bush administration paid so little attention, and devoted so little money, to improving port security overall (all the while spending billions in Iraq), and don't make it about fanning xenophobic fears, we will come out ahead for three reasons: we won't have sacrificed our values (or created a dangerous situation for arab citizens), we will have actually done something positive for our country (rather than just appearing to, as the Bush admin so often does), AND we will undoubtedly gain votes if we loudly lead this effort.

[The Magistrate]

68. Not At All, Sir

People do not have those attitudes because they have been "spun by Bush/Rove". People have these attitudes because, at the most basic level, people fear and suspect what is different from themselves, and because, coming closer to the surface of things, there has been a history of hostility between the West and Islam for more than a thousand years. As a matter of recent history, there have been serious hostilities between various Middle Eastern radicals and this country for a minimum of half a century, and as a metter of practical recent fact, it is indeed a collection of Islamic radicals who commenced direct attacks against the civilian population of the United States only several years ago. Propagandas do not work on any great scale unless there underlying predispositions and observable facts in support of them.

The reason your proposal to use this merely to highlight lapses in port security would be a squandering of this opportunity is that such a proposal aims for a reasoned response from the surface of the mind rather than an emotional response from its depths. The latter always trumps the former in political matters. It could certainly be used as a lead in to such points, but they will never match the essence of the thing before us now, where it is quite reasonable to charge that the present administration is putting an important element of U.S. security in the hands of people who have collaborated with al Queda, and can be expected to do so again.

[Zhade]

74. The UAE government did not collude with al Qaeda.

Nor did this company.

That you are willing to allow that lie to be used to further a dubious political victory saddens me.

I expected better of you.

[The Magistrate]

79. That Is All Right, Sir

We will not always agree in all matters

The statement is, as they say, close enough for government work. The degree of al'Queda operation in and through the place was sufficient that some official co-operation of at least the wink and nod variety was necessary, and simple recognition of the Taliban is sufficient to sustain the charge at the bumper sticker level, which is all that counts. It would make a dandy attack ad in thirty seconds of grey-tone photographss and ominous music....

The only dubious victories in serious matters are those refered to as "moral" victories, these being obviously defeats in fact. Nothing that replaces the present mahorities in the national Legislature, or hamstrings the prsent Executive, is dubious, to my view.

[Zhade]

81. So, you're fine with promoting racism.

I'm not.

I sadly have lost all respect for you, if my analysis is correct.

[The Magistrate]

86. That Would Be A Matter Of Some Regret To Me, Sir

But like many others in my life to now, it could be borne up under somehow.

It remains a fact that underlying this political opportunity, which is very real and very valuable, is a pretty ugly phenomenon. Ugly things underlay a great deal of our lives, and close examination into root motives of human behavior is not to be lightly encouraged, for the results are generally pretty distressing. There does not seem to em to be much help for it, though: things are as they are, and that must be accepted if one is to function, and experience any degree of tranquility.

But two specific points in the matter seem worth pressing. First, to recognize something exists, and to make use of it, differs somewhat from promoting it. Second, while it is base attitudes that give this thing real teeth, there is no particular baseness required to be very suspicious of this deal and the company and government benfiting from it. The concerns many express over the matter are quite legitimate, and strong feelings about them, and forceful expression of them, are neither expressions of nor promotions of racist attitudes in people who do not harbor such, and are certainly not a demonstration of harboring such. That such attitudes are widespread, and that this this fact will give a mush greater weight and effect to such expressions of legitimate concerns, is simply a favoreable conjuction of the stars, that ought to be taken advantage of, and will be taken advantage of by competent political figures and agitators interested in actually doing harm to the enemy's power.

[Zhade]

89. I agree that the deal is to be questioned.

For starters, no other country should be in charge of our ports.

After considering this post, I find that I have lost only a little respect for you, as you're talking about using prevalent racism (which I still strongly disagree with as a tactic) and not fostering it. But I remain disappointed in the "end justifies the means" mentality I've seen from you lately - a mentality I see stemming from not-unwarranted desperation to get these criminals out of office.

I hope you shake out of it. I think you're much better than this.

[Wordie]

83. Foolish...we'll lose any gains when people find out that *we* lied, too.nt

[Zhade]

73. And if opposition IS based on bigotry, we should allow it to remain so?

With all due respect, fuck that shallow, immoral, short-sighted bullshit.

[Mr_Spock]

56. No, he's being pragmatic and you're being a loser

Having Bushco call their opponent (most of all the politicians and myself) "xenophobes" is patently rediculous.

Talk about the Nazi's calling the Jews bigots. Absolutely amazing. They should never be able to have a deal go through until they realize how evil and bigoted they are and stop projecting their weaknesses onto good people who are not like them. Until they stop pretending they are not bigots, I will not listen to a word they say. Bush killed 100,000 + Iraqi's based on being a xenophobe. He needs to shut up now.

[Zhade]

72. Of course it's ridiculous.

That's not the point. Magistrate is willing to allow anti-Arab racism to fester, as long as there's a potential political victory in it.

That's akin to allowing the Klan to demonize blacks just so we can get the Klan's vote. Sorry, that's just wrong to me, and if it makes me a "loser", I'll gladly wear that as a badge of honor - at least I'll be able to sleep at night.

[Jade Fox]

15. Baloney.

This leftist is not reacting to some pre-conscious image I can't control.

Sorry, but that's just crap.

[dweller]

18. no, not really. I just hate the *moron

and anyone who *he has probably promised payback for their part in, L or M, of the IHOP.

dp

[Katherine Brengle]

19. I respectfully disagree---

This has nothing to do with the fact that the UAE is an Arab country. It has to do with the fact that they have had friendly relations with terrorists and terrorist organizations--that's not xenophobia, it's just common sense.

Frankly, I also agree with previous posters that the fact that the UAE agrees with US policy is not a viable selling point. I don't agree with US policy--and neither do a lot of other Americans. Trying to convince us that the UAE is a friend because of this is just silly.

[mac56]

22. Two points:

(1) This is BS.

(2) Even if it weren't BS, I don't care.

[dansolo]

39. You are wrong on one major point

The UAE has been a supporter of *Bush*, not of the United States. They have only been helpful in so far that it is to the benefit of George W. Bush, politically and financially. I also take exception to your generalizing that the response is due to fear of Arabs. The only Arabs that concern me are the Islamic fundamentalists (like the Taliban) and the royal families, who hoard the wealth of their country's resources, while inciting hatred towards others as a distraction away from their total disregard for the welfare of their own people. It just so happens that the govenment of UAE falls into both of these categories.

[Zhade]

40. You are, sadly, correct, at least with regards to some.

NT!

[rucky]

45. Read up on the UAE and how port security works. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

49. I think you are wrong.....

"The left's opposition to this deal is based on the fears of the "Ay-rab" as boogeyman. Not about specific Arab governments"

I don't fear the Arabs. I don't appreciate the government pulling yet another insider deal cloaked in secrecy. I don't appreciate the outsourcing of yet more jobs. Had I know other ports were being run by foreign companies I would have raised hell when those deals went through.

I think you should be careful to not attribute motivations to people when you don't know what their objections are.

[Balbus]

63. Spot on!

[bvar22]

14. That's their story, and they are sticking to it!!!!

A couple of RightWing Talking Heads (Rove issued talking points hot in their hands) were selling that crap on Lou Dobbs today. They were tryinbg to tell Lou that we must be careful not to offend Islam....Lou laughed in their faces.
Dropping bombs on them and occupying Iraq is OK, but turning down a business opportunity will offend the Arab Street!!!???

[upi402]

20. CHEERS! kpete

:toast:

[Wordie]

21. UAE: recognition of Israel contingent on Israel ending the Occupation.

Essentially, the UAE is saying that until Israel is willing to take meaningful steps towards peace, it will not recognize Israel.

The UAE "is fully committed to the Arab peace initiative announced at the Beirut and Algiers summits (in 2002 and March this year) which links any normalisation of ties with Israel with recognition of the Palestinian people's legitimate rights, including their right to the establishment of an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital", the source said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/184FCB4A-39BD-4A0A-B38B-81FCFBD951BE.htm

I know that very many people aren't aware that there is more to the issue of recognition of Israel than we frequently hear. Should Israel stop the occupation, the UAE would recognize Israel. The non-recognition of Israel isn't a valid reason for the United States to have to nix a deal with the UAE.

And the frequent reminders that the UAE recognized the Taliban aren't telling the whole story. They don't mention that bin Laden was considered a United States ally (for his efforts to drive the Soviets from Afganistan), nor do they ever mention that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the UAE withdrew its recognition of the Taliban. This article is from September 21, 2001:

UAE withdraws recognition of the Taliban

(CNN) -- The United Arab Emirates has cut diplomatic ties with Afghanistan, reducing support for the hard-line Taliban rulers.

...The official Emirates News Agency on Saturday quoted an unidentified foreign ministry official as saying that the UAE has tried to convince the Taliban in recent days to hand over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden.

The official said that the cuts to relations would take effect immediately.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/gen.america.under.attack

And here's a recent report that goes into a little more detail about the reasons for the earlier recognition:

UAE Taliban recognition likely pragmatic

By TAREK AL-ISSAWI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates --
...The recognition came in part because of a request from Pakistan, the Taliban's main sponsor, one analyst said. The Emirates also wanted to see a stable Sunni Muslim government in Afghanistan to balance mainly Shiite Iran, a top rival of Arab Gulf nations.

...He said the recognition also was aimed at putting an end to a civil war that ravaged Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, and that the Taliban appeared to be in the best position to control the country.

...Abdulla said the UAE recognition likely would not have happened without at least tacit approval from the United States, which had worked closely with Pakistan and Afghan fighters against the Soviet occupation.

"Islamabad and Washington have been close allies, and the United States at the time saw the Taliban as the group that could control Afghanistan and stop the fighting," he said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Emirates_Taliban.html

[savemefromdumbya]

38. erectile dysfunction spokesmen

LOL!

[Tsiyu]

42. Thank you, Hunter

for saying that so well :applause:

[magellan]

43. I just wanna know

...why DP World was secretly granted these unusually permissive conditions:

1) They aren't required to keep their business records on US soil

2) They aren't required to appoint an American rep to be responsive to our gov't.

Both are customary obligations for foreign companies operating on our shores, obviously to ensure said companies operate within and can be held accountable to US law. So why the pre-emptive freebies for DP World?

I don't care where the f'in company is from so much as getting a reasonable, logical explanation for this giveaway which ties our hands should DP World's US operations ever require investigation.

[rman]

44. Why - because of globalization;

the globe is the playgound of corporations.
Nation-states are irrelevant.

We (they) aren't completely there yet. But they are working on it:


UN unveils plan to release untapped wealth of...$7 trillion (and solve the world's problems at a stroke)
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
29 January 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece

The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.

The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.

In a groundbreaking move, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has drawn up a visionary proposal that has been endorsed by a range of figures including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate.

It says an unprecedented outbreak of co-operation between countries, applied through six specific financial tools, would slice through the Gordian knot of problems that have bedevilled the world for most of the last century.

[magellan]

46. So globalization means zero accountability to the country one operates in?

Okay, it's obvious who that benefits: stockholders. But I'm still waiting on a reasonable and rational explanation of how a lack of accountability isn't anything but an open invitation for a broad spectrum of unchecked globalized corporate crime.

[rman]

47. lack of accountability is simply not mentioned by the MSM,

so it's not an issue in the public mind - so there's nothing to explain...

The global corporate crime syndicate controls governments and govt agencies, media, financial and regulatory institutions (ie WTO, IMF). That's how they get away with it.

[magellan]

50. Yeah, I know. I just hope others are asking themselves the same question.

Even if the corporate media whores won't address it. Why these special arrangements with DP World and who do they benefit?

Free trade, what a farce. I trust companies to regulate themselves like I trust our government to, no matter who's in power: NOT AT ALL. And that's how it's meant to be, hence the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. We all know how BushCo respects those. :sarcasm:

Thanks for helping me flesh this out for the slow-on-the-uptake, rman.

[The2ndWheel]

62. There are no countries to operate in

That's the point.

[Mr_Spock]

55. Having Repukes call people who oppose "xenophobes" is a riot

Talk about the Nazi's calling the Jews bigots. Absolutely amazing. They should never be able to have a deal go through until they realize how evil and bigoted they are and stop projecting their weaknesses onto good people who are not like them. Until they stop pretending they are not bigots, I will not listen to a word they say. Bush killed 100,000 + Iraqi's based on being a xenophobe. He needs to shut up now.

[Wordie]

66. I sure agree with that. And sincerely hope my arguments against

anyone using xenophobic arguments weren't in anyway seen as my supporting him. The entire "terra terra terra" thing is what has increased xenophobia in this country, imho, and that rests solely on Bush's shoulders.

[giant_robot]

57. K&R. Very well said.

Terrorist connections like that would get Iran invaded.

[fleabert]

85. send this to every fucking paper in the country, and the BBC too.

every channel as well.

I second that call of bullshit, in fact I 'infinity' it.