racism and the port deal (why do you oppose this deal?)

[mdmc]

Recently, there ha been an uproar regarding the management of our ports by an Arab country.
As far as I know, the USA has allowed foreign companies to run our ports, and our airports. I know that my local airport, Stewart International Airport, is run by a fucking BUS company out of Scotland, National Express Corporation (NEC). NEC is dangerous because they have a very shaky profit margin. When the profits of a company are at risk, corners are often cut. I know that NEC operates on a shoestring, and have done a terrible job marketing / running Stewart Airport.
The White House (I am defending the White House…wtf?) claims that they have researched this firm (this UAE firm), and this firm is kosher. If they can do the job, if they are not terrorist affiliated, if they can operate the ports in a safe manner, in the most cost effective manner, then they should operate our ports.
I don’t know why this firm was chosen. I don’t know much about this deal.
I have no info on this firm, so I am going on the racist assumption that NO FIRM in the UAE can be trusted to secure our ports, due to their al-quida banking links, and the fact that the 9-11 hijackers had ties to UAE. This is clear racism.

The question that I would like to pose here at DU is, “Would you support racism against UAE firms simply because it is popular and it makes Bush & co. look bad?”

Please answer this question as if I have proven the following conditions:
This UAE firm is the best choice to operate our ports.
This UAE firm is capable of operating our ports.
This UAE firm has no terrorist ties.
This port deal is very unpopular with most Americans.
The Bush administration supports this deal.

I hope this provokes some thought here at DU. For the record, I oppose this deal, based solely on the fact that it gives Bush a black eye. I don't hate arabs / muslims. Peace and low stress.

[unblock]

1. personally, i think port operations should be done by the us government

it shouldn't even be outsourced to american companies. this is an inherently public function, ESPECIALLY in a post-9/11 world.

[mdmc]

15. I agree and thank you for your post.

peace and low stress!

[Nightflurry]

75. Agreed

I don't think our ports should be owned by ANYone but us. I'm not racist because I don't want the UAE to own them. I don't want the British owning them either. Our ports are vital to our trade and security, why should anyone but us be in charge of them?

[Vincardog]

2. The UAE Firm is run by the UAE Government.

This is not about an acceptable Company.
It is about an unacceptable Country being in charge of OUR PORT SECURITY,
The UAE country has been tied to Drug money laundering and shipping illegal arms, as well as supporting terrorists.

We can pretend that your suppositions are correct but they are not.

Who the hell is the "WE" who checked them out? Not the Congress.

It comes down to do you trust aWoL?

I say we have never had amy reason to trust him to do anything but FAIL Miserably and enrich himself at our expense.

[mdmc]

19. I really don't know the specifics, so I can't comment

I can't trust w. Not sure "who checked them out."

But please review my OP. Assume my premises are correct. Why do you oppose this deal? Are you against this deal because of UAE and this countries ties to 9-11-01?

Thank you for your post, and I understand if you do not respond to this post. Peace and low stress.

[Vincardog]

58. Try this: The deal is just the thin edge of the wedge of another

'Free Trade" deal between the UAE and the USA. I oppose this deal because it will grease the wheels for the Rich to Fuck the working people of this country again.

That is even if I assume your premises are correct

which I do not

[mdmc]

60. peace

thanks for the post.

[ChazII]

79. Racism is never right and

should never be supported by anyone.

[mdmc]

109. even when it is simple and makes your political rival look bad?

You, my friend, have courage!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. Why the F * * K do we have ANY foreign countries running our ports?

Anglo, Arab, or space alien? It's foreign control that bothers me.

[mdmc]

21. the best company should run the ports.

The company that can provide the best management (security, effeciency...etc) should run the ports. (I am listening to Rummy talk about this right now!).

Thank you for your post. Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[uppityperson]

24. Company vs country

this deal is giving the UAE government, the UAE country, control of the ports. It is not giving it to a company.

[mdmc]

27. i think i understand

you oppose this deal b/c a foriegn govt. will run the port.

[uppityperson]

30. So do most of those replying here. This is what they say.

Don't give control of our ports to any foreign government.

[mdmc]

33. thank you for your post

peace!

[BR_Parkway]

4. Port operation shouldn't be outsourced to anyone - it's much more a govt

function. Who wants to buy it has nothing to do with my objections, if I had realized it had been privatized, I would have bitched earlier.

If it does have to be managed by a company, then why not a US company? Hell, I'd sooner see Halliburton get the contract than sell off one more part of America to outsourcing (ok, that's a stretch)

[mdmc]

22. I bet Haliburton comes to the rescue

could this be the plan all along?

[Lerkfish]

5. race has nothing to do with it, I reject the premise.

our security should not be maintained by a foreign country with terrorist ties. period.

[mdmc]

25. some think the this country is a partner in the war against terror

I just heard Rummy say it.

If you accept my premises in the OP, then why do you oppose this deal? It is cool if you do not want to respond to this post. Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[Lerkfish]

57. dude, I already answered with my objection. couldn 't be clearer.

but again, there is no reason another country should be in charge of our security. period. I don't care if its Canada.

[mdmc]

94. the BEST company should run the port

even if they are from Canada. Halliburton will not keep us safer.

[BR_Parkway]

88. UAE doesn't recognize Isreal, but we sell them the ports - Hamas, recently

elected by their people won't recognize Isreal and we say we're cutting funding and putting on the pressure. I want to know why the double faced position (ok, I know it's a money thing) about two different countries - their race has nothing to do with that either.

[mdmc]

100. what is the statement re: Isreal?

link? I thought the UAE was western kiss ups.

[nebula]

93. How to respond to charges of racism from Bushistas.

Point out their sheer hypocrisy and opportunism!


Bushistas Last Week: "Of course we're using racial profiling against Arabs! It was Arabs who attacked us on 9/11!"


Bushistas this week: "Criticizing this deal with a state-owned Arab corporation is racial profiling! Unacceptable! Unacceptable!"

[incapsulated]

6. I don't like ANY foreign country controlling ANY aspect of our ports

It's just insanely stupid and recklessly dangerous, period.

There is no such thing as a safe ME country, right now. Not safe enough to hand our fucking ports over to them, jesus.

I hope that the Bush admin is raked over the coals for it, yes. Is this racist? No. It's the stupidity and clear lack of concern for "National Security". It proves that they are full of shit.

[mdmc]

29. thnks for your post

peace.

[Coexist]

7. Would I support RACISM against UAE simply because it is popular

and it makes Bush look bad?

What a strange question. You can't prove any of your points, so this is a leading argument.

[uppityperson]

14. Have you quit beating your wife yet?

Another leading questions with no answer. The OP has too many assumptions and leadings in it to be able to answer.

[mdmc]

34. I ask all to take my premises as true.

The OP is based in logic, not facts.

You basically answered "I opposed all foriegn govt controlling our ports." You were, in fact, able to answer the OP.

Thank you for your post. Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[BushOut06]

85. Why should we accept them as true when they clearly are not?

That's like saying we should support Bush because he:

1. Supports civil rights for everyone
2. Wants to clean up the environment
3. Wants to promote world peace

Don't argue these facts, accept them as true.

I'm sorry, but your points have been shown to be false repeatedly - especially the one regarding UAE's ties to terrorism!

[mdmc]

32. no, I can't prove any of my points at all, honestly

My OP is based not in fact, but in logic. If my premises are true (I DO NOT CLAIM THEY ARE TRUE), then why would you oppose this port deal?

I would still oppose it b/c it is bad for Bush (most Americans do not like this port deal. Most Americans didn't care that a UK firm ran our ports).

I don't know what the best way to run our ports.

[BushOut06]

86. They're not true - that's why we don't support the deal

I really don't understand your OP. You lay out a series of statements which are NOT true, ask us to accept them as fact, and base our opinion off that? IF all your points were indeed true, then it really wouldn't be a big deal - other than the fact that it should be AMERICANS working the docks.

[Marr]

105. Exactly.

It's a ridiculous premise. It's like asking, 'What if seagulls spontaneously exploded? Would you be for killing all seagulls?'

I don't get the point of laying out a series of falsehoods and asking people to assume they're true. For the record, I'm against any foreign government controlling US ports. A foreign government with ties to terrorism is so far beyond the pale that I should think it would be a no-brainer.

[oneighty]

8. (UAE) firm is kosher

That does it for me. Grinning wide. Sigh.

Why bring up racism. It is not a race issue.

Religious bigots might be more correct.

180

[mdmc]

35. thanks for your post

peace and low stress,
mdmc

[Bluebear]

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

It's that simple.

[mdmc]

36. thanks for your post

peace and low stress,
mdmc

[uppityperson]

10. 3 problems here.

1. I do not support racism period.
2. It is not a foreign company but a foreign GOVERNMENT. No foreign gvt should run our ports.
3. I cannot answer your question about supporting racism (beyond what I have in #1) because you have not proven any of the following conditions you list.

[mdmc]

37. I hear you

peace and low stress. Thank you for your post.

[Bammo]

102. uppity

Now there are 3 I cannot argue with, but I am not a lawyer! Hey Checked out your blog - ya' think we just might have met somewhere?

You be well now, ya' hear!

[uppityperson]

104. Bammo

Hi, I checked out your webpage but can't figure out who you are. We might've met. Looks like you can't get private messages through DU yet, email me through my blog site and let's connect. Hmm, who are you? Did we meet in TX or LA or ?

[aquart]

11. It never occurred to me that foreign nations controlled access to the US.

Why would it? The idea is insane. I do not care if it's the British, the Chinese, the UAE. Hell, it could be done by tall, gorgeous blond Swedes and I would still be pissed off. Clinton okayed it? NOT okay by me.

Entry to the US is US business. It should not be in the hands of anybody else. And controlling a port means you control entry, no matter what the cute HSD signs say.

The Dubai deal has exposed an ongoing outrage.

[mdmc]

38. thanks for your post

peace and low stress

[Inspector77]

101. I think this outrage goes on all over the world

[gizmo1979]

12. I think the proportion of scotish people who

hate us is less than the proportion of arabs that hate us.I think the Number was at 75%.Now you have to manage the ports with your people.How are they going to find enough of their own people who will care weather we get blown up or not.It's like having the viet cong run the ports in the 60's. Samething.

[mdmc]

39. thanks for your post

peace and low stress,
mdmc

[izzybeans]

13. No taxation without representation.

I could care less if this the best choice. I didn't realize that British firms ran these ports. And that erks me in the same way.

Why aren't our ports run by our government?

[mdmc]

41. excellent question izzybeans

Our ports should be run by the best org to run it. That should be union labor, perhaps USA govt. Thank you for your post. Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[tjdee]

16. Listen, I friggin love Dubai.

I want to live on one of the Palm Islands next to Shah Rukh Khan and Bill Clinton, but I do not trust ANY country to run our ports. I am even okay with the ports being run by PRIVATE companies of other countries. That's cool with me to a point. But this doesn't sit right with me. Not because I think the UAE folks are a bunch of terrorists, but because I don't dig the governmental control.

[mdmc]

42. thanks for your post. peace and low stress

[w13rd0]

17. I am against...

...ANY foreign held company handling security on US ports of entry. It's classic conflict of interest. For national security reasons, all ports of entry into the United States should be handled by US citizens and US held companies. Period. This particular deal screams because it's laden with cronyism and the company in question is a holding of a government that has "harbored and supported" terrorism.

I'll believe Bush on this when he puts Iraqis in charge of guarding the Green Zone in Iraq, and being the bodyguards for all the CEOs and bloodsuckers over there.

[mdmc]

43. thanks for your post!

peace and low stress,
mdmc
ps- what is the deal-i-o with your sig line.

[w13rd0]

59. i have a sig line?

I'll have to check on that :)

[uppityperson]

73. Here is what your font line says, in grey text.

®evolution or death
Interesting but I don't quite understand it either. :rofl:

Edited to say dang, now it makes sense. You have it written (using those square brackets as I use curved ones)

(font size=1)®evolution or death(/font)

[w13rd0]

80. evolve or die...revolt or die...

...all means the same thing. forgot i had that there...

[mdmc]

98. kick

for the thought.

[mondo joe]

18. It has to do with a foreign nation -- not Arab people.

Doesn't matter if they're capable or not.

[mdmc]

44. thanks for your post

peace!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Not Racist For Me. It's Logical. I'm Firm In Belief That NO Port,

airport, dock or any other security vested operation in America should be run by any other government but our own.

Course, that makes them run by one of the most terrorist regimes in the world, but fuck, it's the concept I support LOL

[mdmc]

45. LOL! I agree and thank you for your post.

peace and low stress.

[Hobarticus]

23. So, I'm racist if I oppose this plan? Awful broad brush, there...

Look, we have a bloated brand-new bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security. If They're unable to manage our ports hand-in-hand with the current port authorities, then a) why do we need them, and b) what the hell have they been doing with their funding?

[mdmc]

46. I am hearing that most DU'ers oppose this b/c it is a foreign govt

that will run the port (as opposed to a foreign corporation). Sounds like most DU'ers oppose our ports being run by folks outside the USA.




Peace and low stress.

[mdmc]

47. for the record, I do not think you are at all a racist.

peace and thanks for your post.

[FormerRepublican]

26. This UAE firm is owned by the Emir of the United Arab Emirates.

You said:

"This UAE firm has no terrorist ties."

Terrorist ties of the United Arab Emirates:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-531
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/cia.hijacker/
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/14abudhabi.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22303-2002Feb16?language=printer

That's just a sampling. There is a lot more all over the web.

[mdmc]

48. just heard rummy and w sayin UAE is a partner against terror

so at least some Americans do not think the UAE gov. has terrorist ties. Please look at the premises in the OP (these premises ARE NOT TRUE, they are included to frame this debate).

Peace and low stress,
mdmc

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Did Rummy Mention They Have Radical Clerics Running Madrasas There?

I'm guessing not, but they are susceptible to the same situations that exist in Saudi, Iran, Yemen, and the Talibani Afghans. So, i would think this is not really a country that we can count upon for any fight against extremism.
The Professor

[mdmc]

61. thanks for your post

of course rummy spoke of none of those things.

I got the idea for this thread listening to Jimmy Carter. He didn't seem to worried about this deal.

peace,
mdmc

[Malikshah]

28. Cronyism and Fascism--marrying of govt and corporations

CSX...Carlyle...DPO...Treasury Secretary Snow...UNOCAL...Karzai...Rice...Cheney...Halliburton...

Uh--folks-- THIS is what folks should be railing against.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_nominated_executive_from_Dubai_port_0221.html

[mdmc]

49. thank you for your post

please look at my OP. Assume my premises are correct. Why do you oppose this port deal?

[Mutley]

31. "Racism" is a very weak argument against opposition to the UAE deal.

[mdmc]

51. why do you oppose this deal?

please look at the OP, take my premises as true, and answer this question. Most DU'ers oppose this deal due to foreign govt ties.

[Mutley]

81. How have you proven the UAE firm has no ties to terrorism?

Because the WH says so?

:rofl:

[demgurl]

40. I am strongly against this deal....

and that has nothing to do with racism. I may be naive but until my husband turned around and asked if he thought all of this was very racist, I did not even realize there could be a racist angle to this.

I grew up always assuming everyone was equal because everyone was where I am from. It was basically all white and so when I moved to the States it was hard for me to even fathom someone holding a skin color against another person - weren't all people the same?

The question, my husband asked, made me think about why I am adamantly against this sale. There is a security issue. This country seems to support the Taliban and the country will now have a blue print of the inner workings of our ports. Are we positive that someone who recognizes the Taliban will not pass on any information to them? What if we make enemies with Dubai? As the right keeps stressing, we are living in a 9/11 world now. I would rather not risk that.

This line of thinking, by the way, extends to anyone but the government controlling the ports. Kerry has said we are vulnerable there and I trust his judgment and that is why I voted for him. There should be no one except the government controlling our ports. That includes any US business. Our safety should be first and foremost.

I guess the biggest reason not to support this sale is because of who supports it. I do not trust * as far as I can throw him. The enemy never stops thinking about new ways to hurt us and neither does he. I do not care if this sale was to Canada or Sweden, if * supports it so vehemently then there must be something wrong with it.

[mdmc]

52. thank you so much for your post!

If I remember correctly, your man isn't a political junkie, is he? Was his take on this deal the same as yours?

[demgurl]

64. He is not as into it as I am.

We used to be opposite. He was involved in Young Dems and he even met Bill Clinton! I have tried to get him to come here but for some reason he hates the format. I keep sending him links to items hoping he will stay here more but to no avail. Instead, he hangs out on a freeper sort of board. He loves to feel he is over there posting to try and fight the good fight....meanwhile I usually provide him with the ammunition to fight the good fight!

I have been the one initiating most of the political stuff we do these days but he and the kids are there always! We have done protests here as well as in Washington. It looks like we will now be getting involved with Food Not Bombs. We really want to teach the kids the value of volunteering as well as helping others because one day you may be in their spot.

His take? I asked him telling him I was going to post it here. He said that he believes there is a lot of racist reasons that people do not want this deal. He told me that if it had been China there would not have been half the uproar and if it was Denmark there would be 'no story at all'. All of this after I pointed out to him my first rant of the evening (before we even had a chance to eat supper) was that * claimed that there was no resistance or protests when London took control of the ports. I turned red talking about how none of us knew about London. I ranted about how even a US business should not be allowed to run these ports.

He stays silent when I point out what my rants have been about. I can only assume he thinks most everyone else is racist. I believe in all of you and I believe in our party. I do not think our party is one of racists. This is not to say there is no racism in it at all, just that I believe people are overstating it to just get us to quietly back off once again. Well I am sorry but our safety means more to me than this.

Those ports never should have been sold to anyone. The government should be controlling them. When you sell it to outside people then they could sell it to anyone they want. It is not just foreign interests that scare me, I do not want people like the Carlyle Group having control over our ports either.

I think there is something inherently wrong when you have leaders who can personally benefit from deals and sales. This creates a conflict of interest and when that much power and money are at stake, let's face it, most of us would at least be tempted.

I will calm down and get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening to me unload.

[mdmc]

67. That is so cool!

I had actually regretted posting this thread until you shared this! I had no idea that your man had met Bill Clinton (I thought he was not at all political / quasi republican).

My local airport is run out of Scotland. I've been aware of this outsourcing for a long time.

Peace!

[demgurl]

70. I could never marry a Republican.

It is bad enough my father-in-law is an ardent republican. I sent him LOTS of stuff about Abu and he told me he was happy with this administration and supports them! *sigh*

Now my husband likes to play devil's advocate with me. He will take the exact opposite side just to test my mental skills but I think it is also to secretly get comebacks for all the freepers where he hangs out. He says he doesn't need to be here since I provide him with all the information he needs. I guess I am his sieve. I sort through the information and then pass all the big stuff onto him.

You should never regret posting anything. If it was important enough for you to formulate and write out then it is important enough for us to discuss. I am glad you are not regretting the thread any more.

Peace to you as well.

[mdmc]

84. thanks

tell your hubby I have a freeper account too. I dont use it much, but I sure do get a response when I do.

[RazzleDazzle]

50. God this post pisses me off

It pisses me off ALMOST as much as the deal itself. You admit your own ill-informed (ignorant) state, and go on to assign "racism" to the backlash on this decision, thus:

* confusing the issue,

* promoting GOP/Bush talking points

* serve as flame bait

* do injustice to REAL racism by confusing this issue with racism.


Please inform yourself. Here's a start with lots of evidence:

911 Bankers to Run SIX Major U.S. Ports—Dubai(UAE). IMPEACH NOW!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2454971&mesg_id=2454971



And here's info about the fascist underpinnings of this deal:

Who the hell cares what YOU think?
(good compilation with links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474465

UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE--Space program to UAE!!!
Randi just read an article about someone moving a program or business to the UAE to build rocket ships! What is happening?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482110

BUSH SAYS HE WOULD VETO LEGISLATION TO STOP DUBAI PORT DEAL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482124
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482418
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2473610
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2122983
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2473610&mesg_id=2473610
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2473635
Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004834.htm

Ask yourself: Why is Bush so damned determined to keep the port deal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=482138&mesg_id=482138

UAE corp. exec. to be U.S. DOT Administrator. (Jan. 06)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x472586

Edward Copeland (52 posts) Mon Feb-20-06 03:50 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471299&mesg_id=2471307
1. This thing is smelling worse all the time
On top of the bipartisan criticism of this plan, including Tom Ridge, a poster on my blog tipped me off to this angle: a key executive of the UAE company was appointed by Dubya in January to a key transportation department post overseeing maritime issues and serving under Norman Mineta.

Here is the link to the company's own press release:

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39


Port security should have been an issue before Bush decided to sell it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471299&mesg_id=2471299
Link:
Key lawmaker says U.S. should freeze port deal
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/centredaily/news/local/13914905.htm?source=rss&channel=centredaily_local

the connection to it all - Carlyle Group involved in port security deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2471320#2471323
also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x473813
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474295
Link: http://www.bridgedeck.org/mmp_news_archive/2002/mmp_news021219.html
and: http://www.nsnet.com/archive-1-2005-02.html
and: http://www.informare.it/news/review/2003/b030303.asp


Our Ports are a Tradeoff!! All about $$$ and Oil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x471124
Link: http://www.oilandgasnewsonline.com/bkArticlesF.asp?Article=14878&Section=1947&IssueID=336 (also other links in OP)

[mdmc]

54. thanks for the links.. the info

sorry this post upset you. it was not intended to upset you at all. Peace!

[ProfessorGAC]

53. I Think All Infrastructure Should Be Highly Regulated

And, since it's far easier to regulate a business held within and operated from the United States, then all transportation infrastructure business should be U.S. based.

It's far too critical to commerce and economics in this day and age. And i'm a strong believer in regulated capitalism, since free markets are seldom actually free.
The Professor

[mdmc]

55. thanks for your post

peace and low stress,
mdmc

[stepnw1f]

62. Free Market Neo-Con Gibberish

Not one goddamn thing these folks have done has come out in the favor of our country. These scumbags are all cons. And goddamn it I hope everyone of them burns.

[nickinSTL]

63. I think that the SECURITY of the ports should be managed

by the US government.

Why the hell are we outsourcing SECURITY?

If we're so damn worried about the "terrists"... :wtf:

[Charlie Brown]

71. I didn't even realize we leased the management of our ports

until this week. I just took it for granted that their was some organ of the Federal Gov't that was at the helm.

This whole story has been very revealing.

[nickinSTL]

87. Same here

I didn't realize it.

For me, the problem is not exclusively that the company is from UAE. There are lots of reasons for concern there, but I'm not really that happy with a company from the UK handling our port security, either.

[mdmc]

110. always been outsourced

but not security, just management:kick:

[file83]

65. "The UAE firm has no terrorist ties." FALSE.

Are you serious? If the USA considered Iraq to have enough ties to terrorism to justify a full scale military invasion of that country (which was a complete misrepresentation), there is no way in hell that you could possibly characterize the UAE's intimate involvment with terrorism as anything but complicity. The UAE not only has ties to terrorist organizations by proxy through corporations headed by the same people that are heading this UAE firm, but the UAE allowed Osama Bin Laden HIMSELF to stay at a Hospital in Dubai during July 2001 while under the same leadership then that they have now.

Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

That's like saying Halliburton has no ties to the White House. It's wrong and you know it.

Lastly, this has not one single thing to do with racism. That is a straw man you are setting up there. Not very honest nor creative of you.

[mdmc]

66. sorry

peace

[file83]

68. apology accepted - Just do your research my friend. The info is out there.

:dilemma:

[Charlie Brown]

69. If this were an Egyptian or Jordanese Firm

it would not be an issue (except of course that private companies should not be running our ports to begin with, least of all ones owned by foriegn gov'ts).

The UAE gov't (who own the company) have a lot to answer for regarding their deals with Yemen, Iran, and others who sanction terror.

The problem with this firm is the government that owns it, and the lack of any oversight from my fellow taxpayers and I about how they will handle our ports.

[mdmc]

89. thanks for your post

:kick:

[mvd]

72. For me, it's not about racism

It makes Bush look hypocritical. Bush is always trying to scare people about Arabs. And it sounds like a payoff to Bush's friends in the Middle East. Finally, this misadministration has a horrible record with contracts!

[mdmc]

96. i like pitt's take

bush has been 'you are either with us, or against us' for so long that now it is hard for the usa to switch gears.

[NVMojo]

74. it's disrespectful of the memory of the 9/11 victims!

[proud patriot]

76. here

http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/dirty-little-secret-behind-uae-port.html

[FreedomAngel82]

77. Because their ties to terrorism and the BinLadin family

[progressivebydesign]

78. UAE... and the 9/11 Terrorists. 'nuff said. n/t

[mdmc]

111. got it

:kick:

[mandomom]

82. It's the government ownership that distinquishes this deal.

Do we really want another nation to own a stake in America, kind of like we run bases in other nations all over the world? Isn't our purpose "over there" to have undue influence in foreign politics? Isn't that want UAE will get with "new deal"? We are in way over our heads as a result of the press and Congress whitewash of everything the Bush administration has pushed through on a lie and a prayer for the last 5 years. Bush is again raising a false premise, that somehow Americans would discriminate against Arabs by revoking the UAE deal He's a flim flam artist. Recall how he declared "some people" say that brown skinned people don't want democracy. NO ONE ever said that except Bush in his pile of straw man arguments. How about "some want to be isolationists", but no one advocates that. The story is that we are a democracy, we want truth and facts, then we will take appropriate actions whether on war or ports. Was Bush a racist for attacking Iraq?

Come on, folks, demand that our so-called representatives get facts and represent US, not represent Bush and his free-trade billionaire's club.

[mdmc]

83. thanks for your post

peace

[PA Democrat]

90. UAE has an appalling record of complete disrespect for rights of workers

I started a thread on this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2476680&mesg_id=2476680

To summarize, they are rabidly anti-union, they use foreign workers and treat them like indentured servants, forcing them to work horrendous hours in miserable conditions.

I predict if this port deal goes through, that UAE will begin an immediate lobbying effort to take away the rights of workers in the ports they manage. These folks have shown by their actions that they have utter contempt for working people and place profits ahead of anything else.

[foreverdem]

91. Shoul d never be

Even if all the conditions you list had been proven, even if we were talking about our closest ally, the only country that should ever control our ports is our own country. Never ever should the security of this country be put in foreign hands, and I do not mean that as a racist statement.

[nebula]

92. How to respond to charges of racism from the Bushistas.

Point out their sheer hypocrisy and opportunism!


Bushistas Last Week: "Of course we're using racial profiling against Arabs! It was Arabs who attacked us on 9/11!"


Bushistas this week: "Criticizing this deal with a state-owned Arab corporation is racial profiling! Unacceptable! Unacceptable!"

[tlsmith1963]

95. Not Racism With Me

If Dubai was full of white Europeans, I would still be against this deal. Dubai has supported terrorism. I don't want a terrorist-supporting country having anything to do with our ports, because we might as well just open our borders & let all the terrorists in. I don't trust Dubai.

Tammy

[MellowOne]

97. It makes no sense

We're fighting and dying in Iraq supposedly against terrorism but we want to support a government that supports terrorists...huh?

[BuyingThyme]

99. On 9/11 we were attacked by the Bush Family and their allies.

The UAE is one of those allies.

The UAE should not be allowed anywhere near our ports. Ever.

[ljm2002]

103. I'm sick of hearing it called racism...

...when people oppose a deal that puts a UAE government-owned company in charge of ports here in the United States.

In fact I would have opposed any foreign company running our ports, government-owned or not, ally or not, had I known it was going on. However, this one made the news, and it's a doozy.

The UAE was and is a known nexus for Al Qaeda, money laundering, and trafficking in nuclear weapons. Several of the 9/11 hijackers came her to the U.S. directly from Dubai. And the company in question is state-owned. I think those are all reasons enough to say not only no, but hell no.

And racism has nothing to do with it.

[mdmc]

108. There is a firm in charge of operating your local airport...

where is it from?

The freepers are coming out in support of the port deal. Once free traders put their arab hate aside, this deal looks "good" (not treasonous).

You may have lived near / and used your local airport your whole life. Foreigners may run it.

[Mr_Spock]

106. 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.

[mdmc]

107. thanks for your post

:kick:

[mdmc]

112. link to Bernie

http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17297