Don't you think we're being a bit racist? (Dubai Ports Deal)

[Kire]

I mean we can't prove that this company, or the whole county of UAE, had anything to do with 9/11, so what justification do we have for denying the deal? They are a private company like any other. Sure, we can be all jingoistic about how our security should be Made in the USA, but legally there's not much to stand on. Shoulda, woulda, coulda isn't going to cut it when they have so many lawyers to defend the deal with.

This is just something I thought of. A question I haven't heard raised. I hope no one thinks I am being anti-american.

[Bluebear]

1. I don't think most would say our ports should be under any foreign control

Be they Arabs, Lithuanians or Congolese. If the right says 9/11 truly changed everything, this is a hot issue to press.

[Kire]

21. The ports are under British control right now.

That's what I heard.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. A British PRIVATE Company. The company that we are discussing

is part of the Government of UAE.

[papau]

32. part of the Government of UAE running our ports seems the real point

This is not simple greedy company.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. Exactly. eom

[TomClash]

100. Actually

The Emir of Dubai owns the company.

What does that tell you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. It has to do with terrorism

and any country that is know to have aided and abetted terrorists should not be allowed control of our ports.

[mwb970]

34. This is so obvious you shouldn't need to say it.

But thanks for saying it.

[radfringe]

3. they are not a private company

it's a state-owned company

it's not racism - it a question of security. UAE has not been all that cooperative in aiding with war on terra. They balked at shutting down financial avenues to terra groups, nuke parts/materials were passed through their ports and who knows what else

we have enough jobs being lost through oursourcing, do we really want to oursource our security too?

if so then I suggest we just outsource Homeland Security to Al-qeada and cut out the the middleman and deceptions

[DainBramaged]

4. You aren't serious asking your question?

So we should sell off our ports to a major foreign power with ties to terrorism who will not make peace with Israel and lose control over what comes in and goes out of our country?

How much more of this country should we sell off to foreign interests? Outsourcing our treasure if that's understandable to you?

This has NOTHING to do with racism, it's a matter of security and economics, which has been fully debated prior to this moment on DU.

[benburch]

5. I think American-owned and operated companies should get such contracts.

I don't care if the bidder is UAE, Swiss, or Canadian.

[BuyingThyme]

6. I think it's racist not to allow Libya to own all of our airports.

[Bluebear]

7. Or to outsourcer airport screening to the Taliban. nt

[w8liftinglady]

26. Or to outsource border control to mexico

[papau]

33. Outsouce the "civilian" control of the Military to a bin-Laden company?

:-(

[Azathoth]

8. National security should not be outsourced to a foreign government

National security is THE most fundamental role of a national government. To outsource it to anyone (especially a foreign government, but even in most cases a foreign company) is to, quite literally, surrender part of our sovereignty.

[aquart]

9. NO foreign control of US ports. NONE.

What's terrifying is that we wouldn't have noticed otherwise. We certainly didn't when the British took over our ports.

Then again, I remember a well-dressed young man who coaxed up some stairs by assuring me of his friendly harmlessness. I didn't want to look like a racist. So I walked up those stairs to the door I was going to visit and the well-spoken, well-dressed young man put a knife to my throat and took my money. Assuring me it could have been much worse.

Nothing about this deal smells good, and I'm not going to worry about how it looks. I HOPE it leads to legislation forbidding ANY foreign entity from being allowed this outrageous amount of power over us.

[Robeson]

10. Bush would agree with you.

[Stephanie]

11. "Racism," the Republican Lie of Last Resort

When they yell racism you know they are really desperate.

[Robeson]

13. Ding. Ding. Ding....we have a winner!

[txindy]

41. It is the WH talking point, isn't it?

Rather disingenuous of them, at best.

[Hekate]

12. It's the country of Dubai acting as a corporation...

...similar to the Chinese bid for an American oil company -- that's the Communist, totalitarian, Tienanmen Square perpetrating nation of China. Just because China has fervently embraced capitalism doesn't mean they have changed anything else about their attitude and practices. That's not a racist statement, that's an observation about the behavior of a country's government.

Nor is it racist to observe that the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a member, do not have the best interests of the United States at heart. The government is non-democratic, regressive, oppressive, misogynistic, lacking in appreciation for human rights....

It is lunacy to cede control over strategic national assets like shipping ports and oil to foreign nations and/or corporations.

The Bush administration is so deeply committed to allowing corporations of any category to purchase anything whatsoever and control anything whatsoever that they (Bushco) have utterly lost sight of the fact that they (that is, the Bush administration) are supposed to be taking care of our nation, the USA. Sure, Bush was (or appeared to be) upset when we were attacked on our own soil; but he was even more excited about the prospect of having an excuse to invade Iraq.

Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind would think giving over our ports to a foreign nation would benefit the US. Benefitting corporations I understand -- but it would not benefit the US as a country and a people in any way, shape, or form. As it stands now, 95% of all containers shipped here STILL are NOT inspected for biological, chemical, or radioactive hazards.

The whole idea is absolutely antithetical to a strategically secure nation. America dockworkers are bound to lose their jobs to cheaper labor shipped in and out. There wouldn't be much incentive to maintain port infrastructure -- such is my exceedingly low opinion of megacorporations by now.

In the end, various corporations and their high-level executives will have made an obscene amount of money, but the US will be the poorer for this arrangement in every conceivable sense.

Hekate

[Robeson]

15. Very nice post, Hekate....

...You've summed it up well.

[Skidmore]

18. Yup, yup, yup,.

[northzax]

67. just one quibble here:

Nor is it racist to observe that the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a member, do not have the best interests of the United States at heart. The government is non-democratic, regressive, oppressive, misogynistic, lacking in appreciation for human rights....

actually, in the elections to be held in UAE next month, women will have full sufferage. 66% of college students are women in the UAE, and 15% of the professional workforce is female, the highest percentages in the region (save Israel). The election will seat half of the governing assembly, which then elects the president. The assembly has 40 people, including one woman right now (and, suprisingly, a Jewish man) both appointed by the Emirs. Dubai is actually the most progressive Arab state at this time. This seems like something we should be rewarding, not punishing.

[Hekate]

105. Big oops if so. Thanks for the update.

They have a ways to go, but yes, we certainly should be supporting efforts (and results) like these. Just not by giving away our ports -- to anyone.

Hekate

[Ksec]

97. Dubai is a fragile country One incident could topple that country

Selling our countries future and its wealth to fragile terror supporting countries is insane. I cant believe this bunch isnt being tried for treason over this.
Seriously.

[timtom]

14. But why no Kenyans?

Or Turks or Mexicans or Italians? Why the UAE???

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. The UAE and Singapore were the only two countries

with the unlimited wealth required who bid on this deal.

[DemonGoddess]

16. nah, it's an honest question.

For my part, something as important as securing our ports belongs SOLELY with this country, and if in private company hands, companies owned and operated in this country. Not any foreign interests, no matter WHERE they are based.

[Eugene]

17. Yes, the protest rings with some anti-Arab xenophobia but

the U.S. has a legitimate concern about the security of its ports.
All port operators, foreign or domestic, should be subject to the
same standards. If Dubai-owned DP World operates transparently and
with sufficient security checks, they can be as secure as British-owned P & O.

However, if DP World uses its ties to the Bush family to skirt proper oversight,
we have a serious problem. Arab ownership introduces a non-zero but remote risk.
The thousands of uninspected cargo containers that already pass thorugh our ports
pose a much bigger security concern. If security is done right, you should not
have to profile by nationality.

[Marie26]

47. It's a legitimate issue,

But I do believe some of the protest is motivated by xenophobia. The fact that right-wingers are the most upset helps prove that as well. It's simplistic to say UAE = terrorists, because they don't. This deal raises issues because of the cozy relationship between Adm. officials & UAE, cronyism, and possible quid pro quos here. It's impossible to seperate all the motives for the protests, though.

[shance]

19. Yes it is racism, but it is racism in the sense the Necons would

scapegoat those who are not Neocons (ie Muslims) to take the blame for all 'terrorist attacks'.

[PaulaFarrell]

20. yes

If the other company bidding for P & O (PSA - Singapore) had got the deal instead, how many people here would be upset?

I agree with the sentiment that selling off national assets is a bad idea, but that's because of the effect it has on local communities. I was against the P & O deal primarliy because of that - I live in Dover where P & O european ferries is based. It is a major employer here although it has been up against the wall for several years. I am woried that they could reflag the ships and hire cheaper foreign ship workers, cut back operations, etc. but the terra? not so much...

Much as I hate to be put in the position of defnding bush, under what basis could he have blocked this deal? Because he just didn't like the people buying P & O? The ports were ALREADY sold off, and I doubt if it was done during shrub's term - I can't find the info easily but it looks like the Miami deal was made 10-12 years ago. This is just a straightforward business deal. I'm not a corporatist, so I hate things like this - a country on the other side of the world running a local business. But there's nothing special or unique about this deal that should inspire the reaction it's gotten. If you want to be angry at someone, how about going back and finding the politicians who made the original deals and made the current situation possible?

By the way, it's not outsourcing. Outsourcing is paying someone else to perform a fucntion you use to do in-house. These ports were SOLD.

[salin]

22. Point that seems to being missed (that you point out)

these ports were already sold - the issue is a foreign corp taking over another foreign corp for this function.

Personally I think folks are going off on the issue because it has legs (as in - it is a wedgie for the GOP supporters.)

[FearofFutility]

54. I agree with you

I don't like the idea of ANY foreign country being in control of our ports and admit to being clueless about the fact that a British company ran these ports. This is a big fat wedgie for GOP supporters, and I hope it opens some eyes.

[NorthernSpy]

24. "racist" to want us to control our own ports?

I think it's completely valid for any country to choose to retain control over its basic infrastructure, at the very least. It's terrible that these port operations were ever out of our hands.

Perhaps a 'free-market-uber-alles' -style ideologue like Thomas Friedman might possibly object to that, which matters if you care what such people think.

I don't.

[H2O Man]

25. No.

I would think that giving any organization with ISI ties the responsibility of guarding American ports is simply wrong.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Racism has nothing to do with it.

[TomClash]

28. Actually he has a point

The vessels berthing in the ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey are almost all foreign. There are no longer any US cargo ship companies except for one or two small companies on inland waterways. The crews are almost all foreign. And as far as I know United Arab Shipping still offloads at these ports. And China Ocean Shipping virtually owns the Port of Long Beach.

So why the fuss over this? Let's face it we think there's an increased chance of terror because it's an arab company. And that's the only reason for the fuss.

[BuyingThyme]

31. It's not actually a company. It's a country.

[TomClash]

46. It's actually a company owned by a country

And DP World runs ports in China and Korea.

COSCO is also a company run by a country, China.

[BuyingThyme]

76. Well, if China and Korea do it, I guess it's in our best interests.

Thanks for setting me straight.

[TomClash]

101. You're welcome

Anytime you need help buddy.

[JCMach1]

29. It has everything to do with it

eom

[BiggJawn]

30. No.

With everything ELSE that smells bad about this deal?

BTW, I think the word you really want is "Xenophobic".

[0007]

35. It has NOTHING to do with racism - All about money & power & position

Watch junior lobby this mustache

[TreasonousBastard]

36. I think there is a huge overreaction...

because it's an Arab state company buying P&O. Would anyone care if was another European company? What if an Israeli company tried?

Nobody complained when Maersk bought ports, or P&O bought out Maersk's interests. Nobody's complaining about hardly one damn ship in those ports is US flagged, excpet hte barges and tugs. Actually, unless you're privy to Lloyd's Confidential or other shipping insider's bible, nobody knows WHO owns all those ships. And even less is known about those containers.

Tempest in a teapot. Either we insist on US ownership of all the ports of entry or we don't. And, since we apparently don't, we can't arbitrarily pick and choose who those owners will be.

Does anyone spouting on about this really know what it means to "own" a port? Or manage one? Anyone know the full relationships between, say the city of Newark, the Port Authority of NY & NJ, and Maher Terminals? Anyone know just who provides "security" for the port? What part does the Port Authority Police play? Various Homeland Security agencies?

New Jersey was a "center of terrorism and planning" so I suppose we should move Ports Newark and Elizabeth to Maine or some damn place? The Hoboken and Linden oil terminals to Connecticut?

[Lochloosa]

37. The UAE was one of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban

in Afghanistan. Do I want them running our ports. NO!

And it has nothing to do with racism.

[zbdent]

39. If Dems had blocked the sale of the ports to UAE (if dems controlled

the house or senate), then the Repukes would be claiming that Dems were costing this country profits by not selling to the highest bidder . . .

[Sydnie]

53. The bid is to buy a company - the ports are already under a 30 year

contract. What additional "profit" is there for the US to gain from this deal? None that I can see.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. I think we need to gain control of all of our ports.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we need to stop giving away control of sensitive property.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Yes. And, it's obvious.

If it was some nice white 'murkan corporation doing the buying, there wouldn't be a peep of protest. But, politicians operate on the theory of making the people afraid and therefore obedient.

[leesa]

44. How transparent. Sounds like it's right out of the GOP playbook

Let's play the racism card...they always fall for that one!

[Bridget Burke]

45. Who knew our ports were being protected by a British company?

It's a private company, yes. But wouldn't it be better for the US to do the job? Why is that "jingoistic"?

Now we know that the ports have not been under our control. Putting them into the hands of a government with some anti-American connections doesn't seem like an improvement.

Gosh--we should just give up. They have LAWYERS!

[formerrepuke]

48. The administration and supporters are already using the 'race' card

against anyone who disagrees them on this issue. You can be damn sure that the RWingers would be singing a different tune if President Gore or President Kerry were in the WH.

[spunky]

49. I don't think its racist to be concerned about a foreign country

gaurding our ports.

I do find rampant use of the term "Arabs" racist, though. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

[Armstead]

50. Yes and No -- It's about the Selling Off of America

There is an element of racism in soime of the reaction.

But it's rotten in a more ethnically neutral way too.

For one thing there is the blatant hypocracy. Right or wrong, Bush has made a big deal out of protecting the US from terrorism, and he hyas identified the Middle East as a source of many of the world's problems. If one is an average person, it defies logic to turn the protection and operation of pour ports over to a nation that is smack in the middle of all that.

It's also symbolic of somthing deeper and more disturbing to people, regardless of political affiliations. The notion of Selling America and kowtowing to the forces of Global Capital.

If the US isn't even capable of running our own damn ports any longer, that says something very disturbing about our position as a nation. That's something even a Freeper should be able to understand.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. There's not a little racism at play here

And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

[DainBramaged]

52. In simple terms

http://agonist.org/story/2006/2/20/163016/143

Read this

[The Blue Flower]

55. Repug talking point

It is not true that this point has yet to be raised. The prez himself said it yesterday. They're always the first to mention race.

[DainBramaged]

56. Kire, I'd love to read your responses to some of our replies

Racist means keeping a person of color or faith out of your business, National Security means protecting your business from being taken over by a hostile foreign government.

[Kire]

82. I'm learning a lot.

I didn't know it wasn't a private company, and xenophobic is probably a better word to use (though it wouldn't be as eye catching in the title as racist).

I still think this is a lot of polical posturing, and I think it's great that Bush is split with his party over this. I wish Dems could capitalize on this somehow.

Thank you to all.

[Joe Fields]

57. There is proof that the Dubai Royal family has ties to bin Laden

Isn't that enough for you?

[bubba j]

58. So lets say we only let an American company run the ports......

Does that mean we are only going to let naturalized Americans who pass some sort of security check work there?

I think we might be missing a point that the grunts on the ground are the ones who could sneak stuff into the country or let a nuke in if THEY wanted to, a lot more easily as a SUIT who runs the place.

Security is a bigger issue than who's name is on the paper.

[northzax]

59. we are being very racist

I know, I know, everybody in the UAE is a terrorist, got it.

I would like someone who actually knows about the contracting operations at these ports to chime in on this. For instance, the New Orleans conrtact and the Baltimore contracts include the use of Stevedores only, and both require that the company hire exclusively from the Longshoreman's Union. What's the real security risk there? that the paychecks are coming from another country? In Miami, they are required to hire a US-based subcontracter to handle security at the Port. Any company can bid on the open contract to do so.

they will continue to hire US workers, at the same percentage of union workers as before, since this is all under contract. Dubai World Ports will have no real impact on security, there are contractual requirements, overseen by the DHS and the local port authority, to ensure that.

this is really a tempest in a teapot, but it plays well in Peoria, so people run with it. And it nicely appeals to all of our baser instincts and emotions.

this is not outsourcing, but it makes a nice soundbite to call it that. There is no increased security risk. But it's fun to pretend there is and blame the Arabs anyway. it's nice to have a bogeyman.

and I've been raising it for a while, only to be told that "Arabs" is an acceptable term, since people in the UAE may, or may not, have been involved in 9/11.

[DainBramaged]

61. Why can't we buy control of their port and oil facilities then?

Call them and ask if they'd sell their facilities to the US government if you feel we are being racist about this.

[northzax]

64. er, since a US company (ARAMCO)

developed and built the oil fields on the peninsula, I guess you have a point. And US companies hold DBO (Design-Build-Operate) contracts on oil fields in UAE, I guess you are right again. And Chinese companies have DBO contracts as well. And European ones. GE has DBO contracts on nuclear facilities in other countries. ooh, you got me there, didn't you?

There is no US based company in the top fifty port operations companies in the world. There is no US flagged vessel of any note operating commercially/internationally anywhere in the world.

and please, please, please, learn the right terms, will you? the ports haven't been sold, the contract to operate certain operations within them has been sold. There is, in fact, a difference. Did you know that 25% of the water purification plants and sewage treatment plants in the united states are owned and operated by a subsidiary of a *gasp* French company? are they shipping in french workers? not so anyone can tell.

the reactionary nativism is really kinda scary.

[DainBramaged]

68. I am fully aware of the terms, simplification is for simplicity

And please stop being so condescending for Christ's sake. This is a BIG deal. And if you don't think so, maybe we should just destroy all of the Unions, outsource every possible job we can in this country, and sell every square inch of corporate real estate to foreign governments or let them operate everything while you're asking "you want fries with that".

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katherine Brengle]

91. I think the issue is getting involved with countries/companies that

support terrorism. If we are so against it, our government should reflect that in its dealings--to include countries like Saudi Arabia, for instance. I think all we are asking for is consistency--it isn't inherently racist of xenophobic to expect our government to cut ties with nations that sponsor terrorism, or legitimize it--it's common sense.

[Beelzebud]

60. If you honestly don't see a problem with the UAE running our ports.

Then you probably also don't understand why democrats and liberals are labeled as "weak on defense".

Sometimes you have to put your foot down. I don't want the UAE controlling our ports after thier past history of funding actual terrorists. I also don't want Saudi Arabia controlling our ports either. Or the Taliban.

If we were racist we would say all Arabs need to be put in camps, and refused entry into the country.

I don't think it's too much to ask that our largest ports are operated by a country that does not have ties to the very same extremists that attacked our country. I'd like to see OUR ports ran by US, but I'm old fashioned...

[Ron Mexico]

62. This is actually good news, in a way

Now when arguing with Repugs, you can say "Don't talk to me about security, your boy wants to let Arabs control five major ports." You haven't really said anything racist by that, but it will register with them and they'll have no comeback.

I'm already using it in the office and it's shutting people up. This is great.

[northzax]

65. what do you mean you haven't said anything racist?

of course you have. What's next? "your boy wants to put negroes in the state department?"

[Ron Mexico]

66. Groan.

"Arab" is the modern-day equivalent of "negro" now?

[northzax]

69. no, but you are attempting to make that association

in people's minds. you aren't saying "bush is giving control of our ports to a state that has some loose ties to terrorism" you are saying "bush is giving control of our ports to Arabs" you are intending to take advantage of people's stereotypes and racism, it's the same level as the Willie Horton Ads, sure, we aren't being overtly racist, we aren't saying all black men are dangerous, or all Arabs are terrorists, but you know what we mean, don't you?

[DainBramaged]

70. Last time, this is about selling the operations to A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

NOT a privately owned company but an ARM of a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

You only see what you want to see in this. Too bad, so sad. Keep seeing the boogie man of racism around every corner.:banghead:

[northzax]

73. and having the Stevedores in New Orleans working for someone else

in the UAE will do what, exactly? are you implying that the US workers, and contractually they have to be unionized, which is not easy to get, believe me, are somehow going to become terrorists because they work for the UAE? not much faith in humanity, is that? what exactly do you think will change because of this deal? how will day to day operations at any port, or security in any way be disrupted? please let us know.

will the US based subcontractors (since you can't remotely operate the port, you need locals on the ground, under contractual rules) somehow become terrorists?

Will the Coast Guard stop inspecing vessels?

Will the local security contractors stop guarding things?

Will the local maintenance guys stop maintaining?

Will the local port authority stop it's oversight role?

please, let us know what you think will happen.

[flyarm]

84. nowhere in this deal does it stipulate who will be doing the work!

and if a foreign "country " is now in charge of offloading the ships..how do we know who will be doing the work?? we do not know!! period the end...

and the UAE is infiltrated with al queada..

get real...this is not a foreign company ..its a foreign "NATION/GOVERNMENT "
getting the contract...

why don't we just rename ourselves..instead of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..WHY DON'T WE JUST CHANGE IT TO UNITED STATES OF OTHER NATIONS!

or how about UNITED STATES FOR SALE BY *

FUCK SECURITY .. this is about * greed...

so we can even go as far as UNITED STATES OF * GREED

FLY

[northzax]

86. in every port under the deal

the contracts stipulate that local workers must be used, in most places union ones. How can we be sure? CAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE!

Dubai Ports CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT, unilaterally change the contracts.

[Ron Mexico]

71. No, I'm throwing it at people who really believe

that all Arabs are dangerous and seeing how they handle it. THEY are the ones who deal in stereotypes. I'm not saying "your boy wants to give control of our ports to terrorists." If they make that inference because their mind already goes that way, it's not my fault.

[northzax]

74. ahh, the Nixon Southern Strategy

excellent.

[Ron Mexico]

75. I'm afraid I

don't get the reference, would you be so kind as to enlighten me?

[northzax]

77. here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Ron Mexico]

80. Good Lord. If you can make that connection, feel free.

I thought I'd share something that works really well while arguing with Repugs, since so many of us have occasion to argue with them, but if I ever mention it again I'll make sure to throw in your objections so that you get equal time and that nobody offends your sensibilities.

Now if you'll excuse me, the length of this conversation has exceeded my interest in it.

[T_Matamoro]

94. Islam is'nt a race!

I know it's really just semantics but Islam is not a "race" so even if you do say something against Islamic people you are'nt being racist. A religionist? maybe? There are Christian and Jewish Arabs as well. The issue here is weather Muslims can be trusted to guard our ports. Put it this way, suppose only 1% of people from UAE are terrorist sympathizers. That means that 1% of the companies employees are going to be terrorist sympathizers. Do you wanna take that risk?

[northzax]

104. the word you are looking for is 'bigot'

in case you were wondering.

[Onlooker]

63. We haven't figured out how to protect our ports yet

Right now, 95% of cargo goes uninspected. Until we figure out how to protect our own ports, we can't set up benchmarks by which to measure foreign companies (or American companies). We should not allow foreign countries to run our ports until we have standards in place that we're happy with. Further, to allow the UAE to run our ports is setting up an international disaster in the event something goes wrong. We have to have all the safeguards in place before considering foreign involvement.

[linazelle]

78. You haven't heard this question raised? Every "news" station repeated

the same question to their "experts" all day long Monday. Hard to miss.

[Kire]

87. I don't have cable.

sorry

[iconoclastNYC]

79. No.

We're protecting our national interests and our security.

[WinkyDink]

81. No.

The longer answer: Get real. Dubai has bankrolled terrorists. (Hey! "Dubya". "Dubai". Hmmmmm.)

[flyarm]

83. this is turning part of our port security over to another "NATION"

not a company but to another Nation/country...

whats wrong with our country doing its own jobs??????????????

would you turn over all our banks to another nation?????????

why don't we just turn over our airport security to another nation?????????

as it is * has given "EASY PASS" to anyone sending stuff into this country..why doesn't * just tell al queada when and where to set off its bombs...lets just have a free for all for all terrorists..

come and get it..terrorists...* says borders are open..come on in!!

i feel like this is like the old show..lets make a deal...

is the bomb behind door #1 or door #2 or door #3...well we just don't know because * doesn't give a rats ass...

and now he has decided another country can do better than Americans!

this is total bullshit...and anyone who says it isn't i have an issue with!

fly

[Malikshah]

85. Just a smidge-- hadn't we already outsourced control to other

multinationals? In other words, it's OK if they're European, but not Arab? If so-- it's just a smidge racist...;)

[flyarm]

88. IS THIS RACIST?????????

Some facts about the UAE:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.


WOULD YOU TURN OVER THE PORTS TO TIMOTHY MC VEIGH???????????I SURE WOULDN'T!

this is not about racism..that is bogus!
this is not turning over our ports to a corporation but to another nation!

and it is in my backyard..as was 9/11 so get off the racism stuff..many races were killed on 9/11...

thats just bullshit retoric!

why don't we just turn over our treasury to a foreign nation???????????
or lets sell wall street to a foreign nation???????

hell why don't we just scrap this whole idea of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..LETS JUST CALL OURSELVES..UNITED STATES FOR SALE TO ANY NATION RICH ENOUGH TO BUY US!

lets just fuck ourselves royally!!

oh we are...to the royal family of UAE!

fly

[Malikshah]

89. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

Ooh. I see. Hyperbole in replace of discourse.

How could I forget. *slaps hand* "Bad DU poster"

Chill.

Have some dip.

The regime already outsourced our security prior to 9/11. Get over oneself and get thee to a happy place.

[burythehatchet]

90. Precisely the road Karl Rove was putting us on.

[Yollam]

92. For me it has nothing to do with race, or even terrorism.

The US should be running US ports, PERIOD. Not the UAE, not the UK, not New Zealand.

[porphyrian]

93. Everyone's a little bit racist.

However, if we could just acknowledge that, identify it when it arises, and agree not to react like we're instant enemies every time it does, we could work past it and maybe prevent it from spreading to future generations. We could also make great strides in identifying and correcting institutionalized racism.

[KingFlorez]

95. No, it's not racist

And I sense this will become a right-wing talking point to defend the deal. UAE doesn't have good track record, so it's not good to trust them with ports.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Have you ever looked at this group?

They're the one's who are. In another post about this company it told how they once prisoned eighteen people who were put in prison because they were gay. And think about this. Imagine if you're one of the people who believe that the Muslims want to kill you (total bs by the way) and now you find out these same "enemies" are guarding your ports. How would you feel about that? I'd be very confused and pissed off if I believed this.

[Ksec]

98. Capitalism . This is Capitalism .

This shows what can and does happen in a Capitalistic country that cares only about profit.

[Raydawg1234]

99. No...................

handing the defense of American ports over to a foreign country? I don't care if it's a middle eastern country. I think handing that job over to ANY FOREIGN country is Un-American, and un-Patriotic!!!!!




(p.s. check out my music at http://www.myspace.com/raykeys )

[slampoet]

102. Were you calling Japan racist when they had limits on rice imports?

That was just as important to Their Security as this is to ours.

[annofark]

103. Totally

But with good reason. However, I think the fall-out could be BAD from this if we don't do it.

[AlCzervik]

106. no foreign companies or governments should be managing our ports

no matter what country they are.

[KoKo]

107. The Corrupt, whitewashed "9/11 Report" sited MANY instances of UAE's

funding of the 9/11 Terrorists. Both Lou Dobbs and Blitzer on CNN listed the influence. Otherwise I'd dig out the info for you...:shrug: