Do you feel it's "Arab Bashing" to oppose UAE's Control of 6 Ports in USA?

[KoKo]

Some may honestly feel this is GOOD for American Business Interests and not such a big deal even though they dislike Bush and all he seems to be pushing.

BUT...others may find his the ULTIMATE OF HYPOCRACY...Bush 24/7 saying that ARABS HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS...yet he allows a country that had TWO (2) of the "9/11 Hijackers" to come in and buy out a Brit Company and their "business interest" is run by an "Arab Consortium" with Huge Contacts with Bush Family and binLaden?

Sure seems to be an "evil tradeoff" to me....at the most ...and at the least...a really "bad deal." :shrug:

[FormerRepublican]

1. No.

[tatertop]

2. Of course not, it's plain good sense to employ US companies

[QC]

3. No. The accusation is "Arab bashing" is just a way to silence dissent.

That's why the Busheviks are repeating it at every opportunity.

I'm not entirely sure why a number of people here are every bit as eager to repeat it. Well, the ones who aren't getting paid to repeat it, I mean.

[Dutch]

63. My feelings exactly. n/t

[Selatius]

4. I don't care anymore.

This is globalization. Most Democrats seem hunky doory with capitalism and free trade, and all I've seen is Dem politicians paying lip-service to the people they're supposed to represent on the issue. Only a few have ever really struggled against the free trade agenda. When you have an idiot like Bill Clinton signing into law NAFTA as well as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, you have a problem, America. If they put up money to buy the deal, then by the rules, they should get them. America waved bye bye a long time ago to independence when its courts ruled corporations have the same rights as a human being.

[htuttle]

5. I don't think it's Arab bashing to expect...

...that the process they have to go through to get the sale approved conforms to both the letter and spirit of the law.

I cannot think of any reason not to fully investigate the implications of the sale, and impose regulations as is mandated by law.

The Bush administration hasn't come close to doing that, so I do not feel it's Arab Bashing to oppose the sale under the current terms.

[LynnTheDem]

6. No. You do NOT hand over port security to a nation who financed 911.

It's really that fucking simple.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Yes. It's a fake bogyman.

And, no, I'm not defending the "deal". It's about $$$$, not "security" or "outsourcing". The corporations, of whatever country, are the ones running the show in most countries, notably this one.

[Selatius]

9. Yeah, your sentiments match mine. n/t

[KoKo]

12. yeah...it's what I think, too...but trying to be fair, here.... n/t

[shaniqua6392]

8. It is not arab bashing at all!

It is security. That and the whole deal stinks to high heaven. Someone is benefiting from this deal and, as usual, it is not the American people.

[SHRED]

10. There are over 3,000 dead...

...fuck what they think.
Those scummy rat bastards running the UAE can eat shit, along with their buddy Bush, for all I care.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. No. I didn't even think in terms of that until it was thrown out there.

Wonder whose idea that was? Mr. "Uniter not a divider" himself? Or Karl "Bush's Brain" Rove?

[KoKo]

14. Karl Rove's Brain should be in a bottle..in Smithsonian Museum....Bush

on the other hand...has no brain...he's told what to do every step of his day except when he has a reprieve to go off on his "Mountain Bike" where event the SS can't reach him if there's a CRISIS.

Bush do'n wanna know 'bout no crisis.....

[baldguy]

13. "Arab bashing" is jailing 30000 US Muslims w/o charging them with anything

Wanting to insure the safety & security of our country by doing an open & thorough investigation of the people who want to run our major Eastern ports is a matter of survival.

[LynnTheDem]

15. YES!

Well said!

[MadMaddie]

16. No...I am going to tell you why...

I am African American and sometimes when this discussion comes up about blacks/racial profiling and racism I use the following example:

(Now let me clarify do I believe that racism and profiling exist absolutely, but I think that the terms are abused and applied to many situations that may not warrent their use.)

This is the example I use: I hope it makes sense

A police officer who happens to be white patrols a predominately black section of town and 99% of the people he arrests are African American is it racism? No...statistically most of the people arrested will be African American...

If a police officer is black and he patrols a predominately white section of town and 99% of the people he arrests are White is it Racism? No ...statistically most of the people arrested will be White...

So All of the Hijackers were of Middle East descent, two of the hijackers hailed from the UAE...received funding from the UAE...is it racism to not want the UAE to run 6 of our countries ports....No ...all of the hijackers came from the Middle East so it is statiscally reasonable to expect that further attacks will come from the Middle East

It's not racism it's reality....(Your Thoughts)

[KoKo]

19. My math skills for statistics have lacked...But what you say makes sense

for those who are good at "parsing numbers" and for those who use "common sense" as their guide.. :shrug:

I hear and understand what you say... It seems to be that Arab Bashing could be equated to other "bashing" we here have gone through....

[MadMaddie]

22. I think that the Repugs are abusing the terms

Racism and Arab bashing to further their financial cause. What happens is the"crying wolf" syndrome. When an actual occurrance of Racism/Arab Bashing occurs no one is going to listen.

That's why I am always careful and try to understand the circumstance before making a judgement. That's me...

[The Straight Story]

21. Well my take on that is

We had a bunch of anglo folks owning the port before, then along comes some darker skinned folk that we have been told by bush are evil and hate our freedoms.

Until recently we here at DU fought that perception, now we seem to embrace it. The ME folks DO want to harm us - so therefore they are to be watched both here and there (afterall, if uae owns port here uae people will be here, as will others who are similar in makeup to the target enemy).

So IF the UAE does get the ports, and if we buy that the hijackers were all islamic fundie types, does it not make sense that we watch the ones here closely that match that profile? Cause up until lately it seems like DU has been one way on the issue and now suddenly has swung the other way...

[mondo joe]

23. You have conflated a problem with a government to be a problem with

a race.

It's not profiling to hold a foreign government to account for its history.

That has nothing to do with people who happen to be Arabic. Like my spouse and children.

[The Straight Story]

36. Then why don't we attack them now?

Seriously. If I thought someone was a serious threat to my family I would take action. Should we just let people hang tight when they want to nuke us and wipe us out? Cause if that is what we believe they want to do than I am all for getting them before they get us.

Either the UAE government wants us all dead or not - if they do, let's fix that problem :) if they don't they why the uproar? Our government has done worse as I have been told here time and again - and we want to trust our government with the ports??

[mondo joe]

39. For one thing, because we can't and shouldn't attack possible threat -

especially when you can minimize the threat by not giving them your ports.

What a silly straw man you posited.

Is that your vision - everyone is so iminent a threat they should be attacked or else yyou should trust them with your very security? There's a whole fucking lot of space between "wants us dead or not" and a whole lot of people who occupy spaces along that continuum.

Dude - do you lock your door? Why not just kill everyone? Do they want you dead or not?

Congratulations, you compounded your strawman with a second fallacy, bifurcation.

[The Straight Story]

44. Um, no I don't lock my doors actually

not car or house doors. In fact I am going out of town on business for 5 days and they won't be locked. But that is another matter.

Not everyone is an imminent threat - but it appears they are as they are responsible for 9/11 as we have heard and we don't want them handling port logistics and the like because we fear they will nuke us. If they plan on nuking us, which it appears we believe, than why let them roam about plotting other ways to do so?

Afterall, we have ships in their ports a lot (and I might add, many navy folk love going to their port) and we get a good deal coming here from there (and our cargo check rate is 5% I think from last time I checked). So IF they want to nuke a port they have a real good chance of getting it done now....but then....

bush it seems was responsible for 9/11, lihop or mihop, so our government is more a threat than uae on this so why would we want our government running the ports???

[mondo joe]

50. First off, no one -- no one -- said UAE was responsible for 911.

What has been said is that the UAE or some factions within it may have been complicit.

You don't help yourself with these ridiculous bifurcations -- either they as a whole want to nuke us or they're our best friends; either they need to be nuked or are absolutely trustworthy.

And since you think our government is our greatest threat why aren't you fighting it?

[MadMaddie]

47. That's a good way to put it Mondo Joe

:hi:

[KoKo]

24. My point isn't that it's Arabs or "dark skinned folks" who are going to

control the terminals at some of our major US ports. And, I don't see your point that DU'ers have been "inconsistent" about this...but I will tell you that when Bush cronies keep taking power and thwarting our Constitutional Rights...then we all need to wake up and figure it "ain't color of skin" or anthing else except "Business as Usual" with these folks. They are the NEW MAFIA...and cahoots with the OLD Crime Families...that were always there.

If you get my drift. Not skin color but CLAN!

[MadMaddie]

25. I think if it were a different country that had no....

connections to the hijackers it would be a non-issue. It has to do with this particular country and nothing else...Everyday more information is coming out about the UAE and it's ties to Al Queda. That is why this is an issue...it's not racism it's about survival.

Do you think that Russia would let the Germans man their Ports? Is that racism?

[The Straight Story]

33. So would we let Iran do it?

What country in the ME would we, other than Israel? How about closer to home, cuba maybe?

UAE as a country has worked well with us and our troops, and is not talking smack daily. The perception we have been fed is that muslim countries hate us, are the enemy, and we need to attack them before they do us.

How about we post a thread thusly:
Should we attack UAE before they attack us? Are they are a major threat and should we deal with them as such? And how do other countries view and interact with them? The french, russians, et al?

[FormerRepublican]

37. Sad to puncture your illusion, but a lot of folks in the US would object..

...to Israel running our ports, too. We trust them, but not too far.

And I say that when I know that they're one of our strongest allies and we hand over boatloads of $$$ to them every year. But I also talk to a lot of people in the US, and while they like Israel, they wouldn't tolerate them running our security infrastructure.

But maybe I just talk to too many ex-military types who are security oriented...

[mondo joe]

40. There are practically no countries anywhere we would or should trust.

That's not a matter of race.

Not Russia, not China, not Iran, not Cuba, not Italy. And so on.

[MadMaddie]

43. The UAE has not been as cooperative as * would have you

believe. The UAE refused to let our government track any financial transactions that went through their banks after 9/11. This is blatent obstruction...

Honestly....Racism is the secondary argument...Let's put that aside...

The * administration circumvented the established laws to push the deal through...Why? This is my real concern...The * admin also rewrote rules and requirments for the UAE..why?

There are too many unanswered questions of how this deal came about and that it was not properly vetted for it to be approved are concerns.

The relationship between the Russians and the French is irrelevent, they were not attacked and they didn't loose 3000 American souls.
<snip>
And how do other countries view and interact with them? The french, russians, et al?
<snip>
BTW good conversation!!
The real issue is we have a choice between National Security vs Globalization....which is more important?

(Sadly I just heard Pat Buchanan say that but that is the true issue)

[The Straight Story]

48. Thanks for civil discussion

And see some of my posts below please (or above...)

I put out racism because that is what many here have claimed since 9/11 with regards to this administration and those on the right. We did not like them demonzing folks based on the fact that were muslim or arabic (or generally middle eastern). Yet here we sit saying that a country in that region, one of which is far more progressive than say Iran, is not to be trusted and is a de facto enemy.

And yes, I favor looking deeper into the hows and whys of all this and how it relates to the bastard bush and his f*cked up administration. I don't trust them, period.

I do wonder, and I think it is a legitimate wonder, that had the uae bid on this and bush said no if we would be complaining how racist he was since prior to now a mostly white country owned the ports.

I just see a lack of consistency which I am trying to address, but as I noted elsewhere I agree that I don't like the whole deal :)

[MadMaddie]

58. No thank-you for a civil conversation...

I think if * had said "no" to the deal he would have been patting himself on the back saying he is strong on National Security. They adapt quickly and that is why they have stayed two steps ahead of us for so long.

I think that the scandals are coming so fast that they are unable to keep pace with them.

You are correct in pointing out the lack of consistency and we always have to be vigilant and look at all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion.

:patriot:

[FormerRepublican]

35. Not the ports or security infrastructure, elsewhere OK.

Lord, do we have no right to protect our national security at all because we're afraid someone might brand us racist?

Do we value ourselves so little that we say "hey, come here and kill me!" because we're afraid we might offend someone?

Do we have any rights left at all, or must we hand them over to foreign governments?

[The Straight Story]

42. Look, let me put this as simple as I can:

I pretty much agree with the folks here who have problems with this. I really do.

I am just mystified at the juxaposition of things though and the 'war on terra' as I have seen it called here. We have busted bush's balls on this whole deal daily and his anti-arab ways. Hey I am cool with that too.

What scares me is right now some here are starting to sound like the rw folks. Of all the countries in the ME, UAE seems to be one of the more progressive ones. And if we want to keep things going well between us I don't think reacting out of fear to them owning some ports is the right way to do it.

The message, from their view, may well be that 'hey we never cared when UK did it, we didn't even know! but now that you folks want a piece of the pie, well we see the error of our ways - not to mention you are a bunch of them terrorists bush keeps telling us about'.

Messages seem cloudy and well mixed. We bash bush for making bad relations with arab world then turn around and say 'uk ok uae no way' which I don't see as helping things.

Asking for more oversight in general and better port security is a smart idea (and hey, did you know we get shipments of nuclear material from 41 countries here and we dispose of it...) I just think it is odd how this whole national security thing plays out. bush is too tough on arabs, now too easy on them, we are the biggest evil in the world, no they are cause they want to kill us, and so on.

Signed me dazed and confused....

[mondo joe]

51. As if Bush invented the threat of terrorism. It existed - and many of us

knew that - long before Bush ever darkened the doors of the Oval Office.

Clinton knew about it and tried to protect us. For god's sake, Democrats have gone nuts over the fact that Bush was warned that bin Laden would attack and didn't act. How can you hold him accountable for failing to act against terrorists and then act as if terrorism is merely a bogeyman Bush created?

[emulatorloo]

54. 1. I am not cool with any foreign govt in charge of our ports 2. UAE

govt still has to prove itself as an ally -- UK has been our ally for a long, long, long time.

3. even so I am not cool with any foreign govt in charge of our ports - Norway , Finland, UK, UAE, etc etc. It should be federalized, under the control of the US Govt. JMHO

[The Straight Story]

56. So bush controlling our ports is better?

Just wondering :)

[emulatorloo]

57. touche -- but as you know BushCo would outsource . . . .

I was thinking more in Pre-Bush/Post-Bush terms

:toast:

[FearofFutility]

61. I'm dazed and confused too

I just don't know what to think anymore. I do know that our port security is incredibly lax and this administration has done NOTHING to improve it. That should be THE ISSUE.

[Ravenseye]

65. So I shouldn't hire black people then?

I mean, there is a neighborhood near me that is nearly 100% black. Lots of crime there. Drugs. Violence. Robbery. You name it. So a guy who lives in that neighborhood comes to me for a job. Sure he's got a degree from the university, and plenty of work experience...but you know...he lives in 'that' neighborhood, so very likely he's also a thief...a drug user...a gang banger...

I'd call that racism.

[Jade Fox]

17. It's Bush supporters who have been Arab-bashing....

for the last four and a half years. They CREATED any racism there is in the response Bush is getting to this port deal.

Bushco made this particular bed, so let them lie in it and get their asses kicked.

[mondo joe]

18. No. The UAE is not a race. It is a government.

[Carni]

34. THANK YOU

That's the whole ball of wax right there

[Appalachian_American]

20. I agree with both of the positions you've presented.

I can't get it straight in my mind that it is not Arab bashing when some of the tv commentators say they only object to Arab countries being in these ports while insisting that there is no bigotry involved. However, I can't seem to summon any sympathy for the emirs. I'm sure there's a deeper impact within the Arab world, but I still can't find much sympathy. I'm sick of the Middle East.

The bush hypocrisy overrides everything, though. He's trying to have it both ways.

[Zenlitened]

26. No.

Is it possible to "bash Arabs" in a bogoted way while criticizing the deal? Of course.

But criticising the deal is NOT by definition bigoted, as some would have us believe.

[Cleita]

27. Something stinks about the deal besides the obvious smells.

I keep getting the feeling from those who approve of the deal that not everything is out on the table. I personally don't think foreign companies, no matter how benign, should be in charge of our public ports of entry and our shipping routes anyway. How many Americans even knew that the British company had taken control of those six ports? I was very surprised. It isn't okay in my book just because they are British.

[Erika]

30. Agreed.

Our ports should be ran by our companies or our government.

[Erika]

28. Islamaofascistpig was coined by the right wingers

With the silent nodding approval of W and his misadministration.

W is world corporate king and that's where his loyalties lay. Most of the U.S. is now waking up to that fact.

If its to corporate advantage to invade and occupy an Arab country, he goes for it. If it's to corporate advantage to award them sensitive contracts, he goes for it. He could care less about national security.

[Carni]

29. I would not even be comfortable with a british company fulfilling this

function...

I didn't know they fulfilled it and I have nothing against the British but this service should be served by an American company IMO

We need the jobs for one thing and our ports should not be outsourced to foreign interests--does the government think Americans are too stupid to do our own port security?

[Erika]

31. We are just now realizing our ports are run by foreigners n/t

[TahitiNut]

32. If so, it'd be "American-bashing" to support UAE control, right?

Can't have it one-sided. :shrug:

[aden_nak]

38. That depends on what the argument is.

If it's some ignorant jackoff standing up in his living room screaming that "ain't no towelheads gonna be running my ports!" then yes, that's racist, and most certainly Arab Bashing. And if that were the only argument against the UAE, "Oh no, they are from the Middle East, so they MUST be terrorists!" then there'd be no weight to the argument. But the fact is that the UAE does have some ugly connections in its closet, and it creates a dangerous situation in terms of knowing who, precisely, is doing what. The part that stinks the worst to me, though, is the fact that the UAE won't be keeping any of its documentation within reach of the American court system. That just seems like a bad prescident.

[mandyky]

41. Remember they said opposing Harriet Myers was sexist

Now, that said, I think Bush supporters, the people who support the Iraq War, etc, yes, they are bashing Arbs/Muslims. I think Democrats and sensible folk do not like the idea of foreign countries, Arab, Chinese, and other "not really our best buddies" owning our stuff.

I am more upset at the hypocracy and irony of this administration and find it distasteful. They have been scaring Americans for 4 years, and yet deals like the ports are fine and dandy.

[niallmac]

45. No. I define Arab bashing as invading Arab nations and killing Arab

people for no real reason. I think Shock and Awe was a pyrotechnic example of Arab bashing. I thing the Iraqi embargo that killed thousands of children was Arab bashing.
Throwing out the Geneva conventions and approving of the torture of Arab prisoners, that to me is worthy of the term bashing.

[KoKo]

62. And Bush....who keeps repeating "They Hate us for Our Freedoms."

Some would say he means "terrorists...but it was always implied that it was Saddamists...and that why in the Bushie mind we had to go get Saddam.

He covers his own ties to the Middle East where he's in bed with the Royalists and to him everyone else is a terrorist.

Bush and his Repug Thugs started the Meme and now he turns it around and says we need to worry about Racism....:rofl: They are getting caught in their own hypocracy at last.

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. No, I just want the jobs and money to go to Americans

[clarknyc]

49. No.

But it is bashing Bush's hypocrisy, demagoguery, and strange disengagement.

[doc03]

52. Republicans think private enterprise should run all

business, right? Anything the government does they mess up and competition between private enterprise is more efficient, right? So, how does a company owned by a foreign government get to operate the ports in the USA. I guess their government must be more efficient than ours? This confuses me!!!!

[Malikshah]

53. Question is skewed from the get go in the Subject line-- hence

the answers will be skewed.

Rework the question

[dchill]

55. It's not Arab-bashing.

It's Bush-bashing. He's always done business with them. It works for him and his daddy, but it's just killing the rest of us.

[StefanX]

59. I think it's falling for our enemy's "framing" to even phrase it this way

The UAE funded the 9/11 terrorists. That's the way we should be "framing" this -- not falling for Dubai Dubya's framing of this mess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x508671

[KoKo]

60. The way Bush framed it....is the way most people will hear it...and

that's why I put it out the way Anne Coulter would. Or O'Leilly.

It's amazing how the Bushies can turn a phrase so that it's the opposite of what they mean.

[lonestarnot]

64. Nope

not!