It's NOT About Anti-Arab. It's About PRINCIPLE and SECURITY.

[Dr. Jones]

I'm getting REALLY sick of hearing how Bush's UAE port deal is about anti-Arab sentiment. It's not about that at all, and they damn well know that. We would be just as concerned if white terrorists in Chechnya or black terrorists in Sudan wanted to take over management and operation of our ports! This has NOTHING TO DO with the color of their skin, but the shell-shocked White House has NOTHING ELSE but the race card as their sole defense. Because apart from the issue of race, there IS no other defense.

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham did a great job on Face The Nation this morning explaining why he feels this is a bad move. He reiterated that it IS about security. That the management company DOES in fact hire security guards, etc., and that they work closely with other law enforcement. But moreover, I believe the broader issue here is PRINCIPLE.

We KNOW that over half the hijackers from the 9/11 attacks flew directly from Dubai to the U.S. just before the attacks, which by the way killed 3000 Americans. We KNOW that as recently as TWO YEARS AGO, the UAE was still being used as a critical logistical hub for Bin Laden's terrorist operations:

Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai
From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.

We also know that President Bush firmly and often repeated the mantra, "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" and "We make no distinction between terrorist states and those who harbor terrorists." Bush's new push for a country with such close and recent ties to terrorism therefore begs the question. Why? Why is he pushing so hard for this deal? Why is the UAE an exception to Bush's "tough stance" on terrorism?

Clearly, the race card is a diversionary Rovian tactic. But it is a very weak argument indeed.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I'd feel the same way if it were Norwegians

and they are pretty harmless. Well, there was that rape and plunder issue back there...but since then, nada.

Aren't there at least SOME things we can say have to stay American?

[maine_raptor]

2. Nope, sorry.....everything is up for sale

It's one great big "Going out of Business Sale". Evrything must go! Huge Markdowns. 30% off if you pay in cash!

Capitalism at its finest.

Now if we could only get the Taliban to fork over the cash, we could sell them the Secret Service. Think of the fun Bush will have then.

[mike_c]

9. then why have you never expressed that outrage before...?

Nearly every port terminal in America is operated by a foreign company-- nearly 100 of them. It would not be at all surprising to find a Norwegian company among them.

[Dr. Jones]

13. Again I say that

very few Americans if any really knew this kind of thing was going on. If it were explained to us that our ports were being managed/operated by foreign countries, then you damn well better believe there'd be an outcry.

[mike_c]

15. see #14 below-- this hasn't been secret, for god's sake....

Port terminal operators are licensed and regulated by the U.S. Customs Service and the Federal Maritime Commission. They negotiate contracts with U.S. materials suppliers, labor unions, and service companies, and they do it openly. Most of their port employees are Americans, and they know where their paychecks come from. Foreign management of port terminals has never been secret, and it isn't new by any means.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Complete and total ignorance on my part

[liberal N proud]

3. No foreign government should have control of US ports.

The repukes can cry discrimination all they want.
1. A foreign company should have never been allowed to control our ports
2. We should force all those who do to sell their interest in these ports to US interests.
3. Dubai has partial ownership in the DPW, this means that the Dubai government will have some control of US ports. How dangerous is that? Common sense says it is as dumb as you get.

Globalization or no, we can not allow other countries to control OUR ports, they are the gateway to which the world comes to the US and to let them control that gateway is scary.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. Argument is rooted in projection

When I go to the boards and this talking point is posted by the same people who a few weeks ago were proclaiming that Islam is fundamentally evil and there are no moderates. They tried the same line when the marketing switched from "WMDs" to "Democracy".

[mike_c]

5. so why wasn't everyone outraged about P&O running operations...

...in those same ports? Al-Qaeda operates in Europe, too-- to the extent that it continues to operate at all, which is evidently not much. Money is laundered in Europe too. Terrorists fly out of European cities. Dubai was useful for the operations you've quoted precisely because it's not a Tehran or a Riyadh, or even an Istanbul.

I don't like the port operations deal either, but for entirely different reasons-- I want port operations nationalized and not run as for-profit business, let alone outsourced. But since Americans had no objections to P&O running U.S. port operations, I think it rings awfully hollow to claim that objecting to DPW-- which is a better operation than P&O in most respects and has an excellent track record-- isn't xenophobic and racist. It wasn't until a company from an arab country became involved that the outcry began. But that's just coincidence, right? Sure.

[Fla Dem]

6. I totally agree with your comments, however I listened to an NPR segment

this morning which really shed some light on the subject. At least for me. According to the report, the ports are divided into terminals, and there are over 100 terminals in the US. Not only does the Chinese government own a port management company that manages terminals in our ports, but so do Singapore and Venezuela. There are only 2 American owned companies that manage any of the terminals in our ports. One manages 6 terminals the other only one. Maybe another dozen terminals are managed by state or city governments. All the rest, over 100, are run by foreign based companies.

Here is a link to the report. It runs about 4 minutes, but is enlightening.

Getting the Facts on the Port Security Fracas
by Debbie Elliott and Adam Davidson

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5233829

[July]

7. I'm not aware of anyone but wingers saying there's a problem because UAE

is an Arab country, yet we're debating them as if someone on our side did.

When we accept their premise, we've already lost.

[baby_bear]

8. I think it's all anti-union

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be interested in knowing how many of the ports that are operated by foreign countries in the U.S. hire non-union workers (longshoremen, stevedores) compared with those operated by U.S. companies.

Globalization is anti-labor; perhaps the term "post-9/11 world" is just code for the same thing.

b_b

[mike_c]

12. only about half a dozen U.S. port terminals are operated by U.S. companies

...so your question basically becomes "how many port operators hire union workers?" With the exception of those half dozen or so run by U.S. companies, all union port terminal labor works for foreign corporations.

[Ravenseye]

10. It's a little bit Anti-Arab

Like others are saying, nobody seemed to care before it was an Arab company.

Saying you don't want an arab working security for you, is racist. It's basically saying that every arab is complicit. It's profiling. That's just the root of it.

But speaking as an arab, even other arabs don't trust the arabs from the UAE...put that in your pipe and smoke it...Just because what you want to do might be racist, doesn't automaically make it wrong...

It's like not trusting a guy because he's black. If he has a criminal record and you still don't trust him, it doesn't make your initial gut feeling correct. The gut feeling was racist, but once you see the criminal record it doesn't really matter that you were racist in the first place...

So racist? Yes. Give em the ports? No f'ing way.

[Dr. Jones]

11. But nobody really knew about these programs

before this deal with the Arab UAE. Nobody really knew (at least the population at large didn't know) that the U.S. was making deals to cede management/operations of our ports to foreign and potentially dangerous countries. I think most Americans would object to many of these deals no matter WHAT the color of their skin or their ethnicity was.

The way I see it, it's about principle and security, not racism.

[mike_c]

14. but Americans haven't protested for YEARS-- this isn't new...

...and it certainly hasn't been kept secret. Port operators at nearly EVERY U.S. port are foreign companies and have been for a long time. If people were uninformed about that, it was mostly because there wasn't any problem, but it's certainly not been kept a secret. The companies themselves trumpet it-- U.S. port management contracts are lucrative, so netting them is invariably communicated, at least to share-holders, competitors, port labor unions, and so on.

I'm just amazed at the extent that people are trying to dance around the fact that they didn't start objecting to foreign companies managing U.S. port terminal facilities until an arab company became involved. The previous poster is correct-- this is profiling, plain and simple.

[Dr. Jones]

17. And I continue to disagree.

You have to remember that the majority of Americans are more into their infotainment than port security. Many don't even pay attention to the news. So for you to assume that Americans knew that their ports were being outsourced to foreign, potentially dangerous, countries - and CHOSE not to voice dissent until an ARAB country was involved - is simply fallacious.

Granted I will say it is more pronounced (and more emotional) because half the hijackers that killed 3000 Americans were from Dubai, and the UAE has continued to harbor and finance terrorism. That HITS HOME! It's just common sense. Now let's say WHITE terrorists from a former Soviet bloc nation were to take control of management/operation of our ports. Let's say as an example that they subscribe to the same radical ideology that struck us on 9/11. Would it be racist of me to say the deal shouldn't go through? OF COURSE NOT! It would be common sense.

You don't want to open up your ports to a country you KNOW has harbored and financed terrorism, let alone had HALF the 9/11 hijackers come to kill 3000 of our people!! That's all, that's what it comes down to. Not race.

[High Plains]

19. C'mon, if we're gonna be hysterical, let's at least get facts right.

"half the hijackers that killed 3000 Americans were from Dubai."

No. Two were from the UAE, 19 were from Saudi Arabia.

How did the UAE "harbor and finance terrorism?"

Who in Dubai Ports World "subscribes to the same radical ideology that struck us on 9/11"?

[Dr. Jones]

21. Hysterical? Look again at the OP...

Bin Laden's operatives still using freewheeling Dubai
From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.

Half the hijackers FLEW directly from Dubai to the United States to carry out the 9/11 attacks - meaning the UAE was and still is an open country for terrorists to come and go at will without questioning. And we should allow them to take control over operations/management of our ports? Come on!

DP World is state-owned - meaning, the Government of the United Arab Emirates OWNS it. If you read the article, which I hope you do, you will clearly see that the UAE has harbored and financed terrorism. In fact, as I remember it, Bin Laden was in a hospital in Dubai in July 2001 for dialysis treatments!

[High Plains]

23. Yes, the UAE is a relatively open country.

Yes, it is a major airline hub, so it is not in the least suprising that people would fly out of there--even terrorists.

If you read the article, you will see that the UAE authorities arrested the Al Qaeda guy and sent him back to Pakistan (to be tortured).

Yes, the UAE is also a major financial hub. But just because Al Qaeda guys had bank accounts there doesn't mean it "financed terrorism."

Tell me, what would you have the UAE do? It is trying to be a relatively open county. I find that laudable.

[mike_c]

20. your hyperbole is getting the best of you....

Two is hardly half of nineteen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon. American investigators concluded that it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who led the planning of the attacks.

And does the fact that two madmen came from UAE indict the whole country abd all its future relationships with the U.S.? That is the very definition of profiling.

As for your accusation that the UAE harbors and finances terrorism, that is one of the worst examples of the pot calling the kettle black that I can imagine. The U.S. is among the world's top financiers and equipment providers for international terrorism-- far more so than the UAE! The U.S. kills or causes to be killed more civilians every day than died in the 9/11 attacks, so spare us the sanctimonious rememberances please. Let the Bush administration trot out 9/11 to justify its xenophobia-- I expect better here.

[Dr. Jones]

22. See #21 above...

n/t

[Ravenseye]

16. No it's racism

Before this if you had gone up to 100 people on the street and said.

"An English company from the United Kingdom controls the terminals at the port of Newark. Please comment on this."

Most people would say: "huh?" or "I don't know." or maybe some general outsourcing type comment, more about getting americans jobs rather than give work to foreigners..

now go back out and say "An Arab company from the United Arab Emirates controls the terminals at the port of Newark. Please comment on this."

Then you'd get security questions...people saying it's a bad idea, etc.

Profiling. Racism. If you heard this was an arab company and immediately thought it was a bad idea because it was an arab company before finding out anythign else, then it was a racist thought. It's ok! Everyone has them. It's about overcoming them that's key.

Now once you find out that the owners of the company have had tea with binLaden in his caves....well then you can start to get worried...

[matcom]

18. of course it is anti-Arab

why aren't you blowing smoke about the OTHER foreign countries operating our ports?

Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments. According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060225/cm_huffpost/016325;_ylt=A86.I2Q5wQBEGDwAagj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[stevietheman]

25. Perhaps b/c those other countries don't have ties to al-Qaeda. n/t

n/t

[matcom]

27. bullshit and you know it

that is a LAME strawman

what "ties"? 2 of the guys had UAE passports?

Richard Reed had a UK passport.

got a point here?

[stevietheman]

28. I know what I said is the absolute truth

Here's some links for reading:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. It's about $$$$$, bogeymen, and xenophobia.

I'm happy to see Boobya and his pals squirming, but this whole ridiculous deal is really about corporations squabbling about cashing in, and politicians posturing. May they all roast in hell.

[clarknyc]

29. Yep.

"It's NOT About Anti-Arab. It's About PRINCIPLE and SECURITY."

That's right. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. There's no way that I can trust this administration to make the right decisions about anything after the long parade of failure it has coreographed. They have lied and lied and lied. They can scream racism all they want in that way of projecting that they have, but it won't change a thing with me. They are NOT to be trusted, especially when executing a 180 in attitude because they find it desireable. Screw 'em.

They don't get a pass from me and they shouldn't from any single Democrat, as far as I'm concerned.