Serious question: Let's say the ports deal goes through. Then one day...

[FormerRepublican]

...Bush does his usual stupid thing in the Middle East - he invades Iran, or tells the Israelis to bomb the Palestinians back to the stone age because they elected Hamas and restarted terror attacks in Israel, or bombs Mecca after the next 9/11, or who knows what stupid thing Bush will do next.

OK, given the stupid thing Bush does in the Middle East, might the UAE shut down our ports in protest? Or look the other way as terrorists infiltrate or ship weapons and sheet to the US for a strike?

Isn't that at the heart of this debate?

Given that stupid thing Bush does, would the UAE act like nothing happened, or would they act against us?

What do you think?

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Duh! These are valid reasons we should control our own ports!

This is always a risk, and the idjit white house line that opposing this sale is just because of racism skips over this very valid point. That is a very likely, NONRACIST, possibility.

[MADem]

2. They can't really shut the ports down, we could just nationalize them

The subcontracting entities do all the heavy lifting. These seven clowns who own a country are interested in one thing--profit. That's not to say that they aren't above doing some dirty dealing that might not be in our interests vis-a-vis national security, and laugh like hell about it privately.

The worry is that they will let cargos slip through, either by accident or by design, that don't even have to hit the customs safeguards to cause trouble. Say, a ship is coming into Baltimore, and before it even gets pierside to be checked out, KA-BOOM, baby....

[Erika]

3. The heart of the debate is UAE

is an Islam country. They would be far more likely to set off a dirty bomb in congruence to their Islam constituency's.

[Vincardog]

4. Well since the UAE was already linked with shipping Nuclear components to

Pakistan and they would be partially responsible for port security in 6 major US cities you figure it out. By the way the UAE gave 6 BILLION to the Carlyle group. You remember Poppy Bu$h's outfit.

[havocmom]

5. I think the drug problems in the US are gonna get a lot more serious

[AntiFascist]

19. Watch for heroin use to increase dramatically....

"Poppy"...how appropriate!

[ginnyinWI]

6. I think the heart of this debate is

a possible terrorist attack through one of these seaports.

Also,realistically, any military action he might want to take--if it has to have Congressional approval like last time--I don't think they're in the mood to pass another resolution. So it would have to be over their objections and against the law. And that would certainly be the last straw for Congress. If there is anything stronger than party loyalty, it's getting really cheesed off at having your power taken away.

[mike_c]

7. do you really live in fear of "terrorists infiltrating...?"

Do you understand that your chances of being struck by lightning are considerably higher than your chances of being killed by terrorism? I am getting so tired of all this talk of terrorism, arabs, vague references to ties to islamic extremists, and so on. There is no credible terrorist threat other than the threat the U.S. itself creates by its actions abroad. If people put half as much effort into making our own government act conscionably as they put into positing potential terrorism threats there wouldn't be any threats to worry about!

[wtmusic]

8. hear hear

Security is fine, but useless without a sensible approach to foreign policy.

You kill enough people overseas and they'll find a way to get a nuke in, ports or no ports.

[FormerRepublican]

10. You're missing the point of my post.

Can the UAE be relied upon to act as if nothing happened if they disagree with something ugly we've done (and with Bush in charge, there's plenty). We're talking critical infrastructure here. Remember what happened when the dockworkers in LA went on strike? Would you want to be dealing with that in the midst of some national security crisis?

That's the very basis of national security.

It's not just about terrorism. It's also about protecting the functioning of our country, as much as is possible, for most forseeable events (and with Bush, it's stuff everyone objects to, even us).

[mike_c]

13. with all due respect, you have been coopted by the fascists....

You're reading from their dance card. If America wasn't a threat to the safety of the rest of the world it wouldn't matter who oversees port operations. Under the circumstances, UAE is a remarkably stauch ally. That's not really my point-- I'd like to see port operations nationalized-- but all this repetition of the fascist talking points-- terror, terror, terror-- is really ludicrous. Are you really so afraid?

[FormerRepublican]

14. That comment doesn't make any sense.

You're talking as if the US hasn't been engaged in national security protection since the inception of our country. They have, at times far more than we're talking about here. You're also implying we have no right to protect our national security because of US past actions. That's BS! American civilians are not to blame for our governments secret actions, nor should they be required to die to pay for them because of some misplaced notion that we should do nothing at all about national security because of past government actions.

Tell me - what do you think protection of national security is? Do you think we should be doing ANY?

[mike_c]

16. you know, I have this very same conversation with conservatives...

...and they usually resort to precisely the same rhetoric. National security! 9/11! Terror! Do you want us to be attacked?!

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering

[FormerRepublican]

17. So is your answer that we should have no national security?

Be specific.

[mike_c]

20. sure, and I hate freedom, too....

Please. We have PLENTY of national security. We have more national security than most nations on earth. I object to the notion that America is at the baracades keeping back the barbarians. Yes, I want national security. I want the security that comes from being a respected international partner, not the security of the paranoid security state that inspires either hatred or fear everywhere it goes. Let the republicans wail and gnash their teeth about how threatened America is-- it isn't true, but I expect the Goering approach from them. But I know it's a lie, and that the primary threat is the one we have created ourselves.

[FormerRepublican]

24. Actually, we're more open than most countries on Earth, which is...

...why security is an issue. For example, if you visit China, you might get a minder to follow you around. If I visit Saudi Arabia (I'm a woman, so I'll use myself as an example), I have to wear full covering and not drive. If you visit North Korea, you're going to the Gulag. If you visit Iran, you better watch your back. If you visit Iraq right now, you'll probably end up dead (thanks to that idiot Bush). Russia is better recently, but you used to not be able to travel freely at all.

Those are examples of excessive national security, paranoia, violence, and whatnot. And a surprisingly large portion of the world engages in that type of thing.

Most people who come to the US can wander around without too much trouble and do pretty much whatever they please, short of heisting a McDonalds or something similar.

It's that very openness that makes border and entry security important. Once they're in, they're lost in the crowd and no one much cares what they do unless they do something criminal enough to get noticed. Personally, I prefer to have things tight on the borders so we can be ultra-free in the interior (if we could just get rid of the freaking Patriot Act!). Nor do I personally have any objection to border screening to prevent more criminal problems when we have enough already.

[mike_c]

28. and yet there is far less violence from outside in America....

That's the point I was making when I said we have plenty of national security. We have lots of "mundane" violence-- people killing one another for stuff or other senseless reasons-- but we have a violent culture. Most other nations have suffered far more violence against the state or against social institutions than America-- we've had remarkably little of that, yet all we hear nowadays is how "threatened" we are. It simply isn't true.

[FormerRepublican]

30. So we should ignore the fact that 9/11 happened and do nothing to...

...increase security and possibly prevent more events like 9/11?

If someone gets murdered in my neighborhood, I want the cops to find the murderer and put him/her in jail. I would also like to actually see police officers (vs. having none), street lights and lights in store parking lots, regular patrols of trouble spots, etc.

Bin Laden declared war on the US, and has executed a number of attacks on the US and killed a number of Americans. We should ignore this?

[Telly Savalas]

12. Preying on fear, paranoia, and hatred has been an effective strategy

for the Republicans, so naturally some Democrats think it's a great idea to adopt it too.

[sandnsea]

15. Embassies, Cole, WTC 1&2

Bali, Madrid, London; yep, all just figments of my imagination.

The odds of me being struck by a terrorist OR lightening are nil, considering I don't go outdoors if it's drizzling, let alone if there's lightening. And I suppose because the odds of getting hit by lightening are pretty small for anyone, we should just forget about weather data centers and forecasts to tell people to get off golf courses and off mountainsides, because hey, how many people are actually stupid enough to be on any given golf course or mountain when there's lightening anyway. So what a waste of time and money worrying about the weather.

Then there's the whole anti-globalization bullshit. You only hate it when the US is doing it, is that it?? When the Bushes get in cahoots with the UAE, and put up a UAE front company, then it's okay because there's no American flag for you to attack???

I guess the only solution to the world's problems is to dissolve the US, which is exactly what's happening so I'd think you'd be pretty cheerful about the state of the world.

[riderinthestorm]

18. But I take actions to reduce the chances of getting struck by lightening

I don't carry an umbrella in thunderstorms, or fly a kite. I get off my horse (who is wearing metal shoes) and go inside, if I golfed I'd put away the clubs instead of standing there holding a metal iron up to the sky.....

It just seems prudent to be safe and cautious.

Border security should be an American task. No one elses.

[mike_c]

21. and now you have a "war on terrorism" to really keep you safe....

I've said before, I'd like to see port operations nationalized-- not out of fear, but because I distrust the motives of CORPORATIONS far more than the motives of governments of islamic nations.

on edit-- my responses in this thread aren't about the ports-- they're about repeating the fascist core principle that Americans are at war with shadowy "threats" that are constantly trying to "infiltrate" or "strike" us. Those are fascist talking points, plain and simple. Bush cannot make a speech without repeating them. It saddens me to see them repeated here.

[riderinthestorm]

22. Uhm, so wanting to have Americans monitor our ports

is now somehow akin to supporting Bush's faux WOT???

What the fuck?

This isn't even logical.

[mike_c]

25. this conversation is becoming surreal....

Where did you get the impression that under any circumstances Americans won't "monitor our ports?" P&O currently manages operations in those six ports-- a foreign corporation-- but port security is the responsibilty of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service, and it always has been. It will remain their responsibility if Dubai Ports World buys P&O. Port management means dispatching and the like, not security responsibility.

I don't actually like the idea of any foreign corporation running port operations, but my objections are to outsourcing, not to "security threats." My responses in are not in defense of DPW-- they're objections to constant repetition of the fascist litany of xenophobic fear.

[FormerRepublican]

27. Just as I would demand that my country prepare for events like Katrina,

...I also demand that they prepare for international violence (WAR).

We've been dragged into a lot of wars in the past by our allies that we had no direct part in starting, and those actions in support of our allies created security risks. Examples? WWI, WWII, Korea... Well, you get the idea. Then there are the stupid things our government does, like Bush's invasion of Iraq. Regardless of the stupidity, I and other innocent Americans are not to blame for that stupidity. Does Bush's stupidity mean we should not be protected from the violent fallout?

9/11 was also a real event, and I do expect my government to be prepared for those types of events and avert them if possible. To do anything less is just as negligent as the failures after Katrina.

[mike_c]

29. ahh, no discussion of the need for obsessive security would be complete...

...without reference to 9/11! Another fascist talking point.

[FormerRepublican]

32. 9/11 didn't happen? Any response to 9/11 is automatically fascist?

Perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning on that?

[mike_c]

34. inappropriate responses to 9/11 serve little purpose other than...

...to parrot the fascist line. Irrational responses to 9/11 are simple fear mongering. I'll remind you of Goering's remarks once again. Fear is the easiest way to bunch up the sheep.

[FormerRepublican]

35. I agree that Bush has overplayed the fear propaganda.

However, there are still legitimate national security issues involved in the aftermath of 9/11. We can't let Bush's stupidity make us blind, either.

Again, if someone commits an ugly crime in my neighborhood, I'm going to want some police action to clean things up. And probably some decent security devices - like lights, routine patrols, etc.

I don't think that's fascist.

[riderinthestorm]

33. Fine, so label your objections "outsourcing"

And I'll label them as security. I don't see how this somehow makes me xenophobic.

I think it's common sense. Even before 9/11, we had the Cole bombing, the first WTC attacks, the African embassies and numerous other smaller strikes. It just makes sense that we should have put our port security into American hands years ago. If I'd been aware of the Chinese ownership out in CA for example, or P&O, I feel pretty certain I would have the same position based upon more than just the Bush Admin's spin.

I can agree with your outsourcing comments though... more jobs for Americans.

[gunsaximbo]

9. I just heard Barb Boxer say that Halliburton has some role in this

Shocking!

[tularetom]

11. I don't understand the risk * is taking

His whole shtick is that there hasn't been another terrattack in the US since 9/11. Suppose the ports are turned over to Dubai Ports and an incident takes place resulting in a lot of deaths, injuries and damage. Suppose also that it can be traced back to one of the UAE managed ports. Hell even suppose it can't. Does anybody think that even * will be able to slime his way out of that?

Or maybe he knows he's NOT taking a risk?:tinfoilhat:

[CJCRANE]

38. The worry for me

is that with Bushco's links to this port company and ME assets that Bush is the risk.

Do you think he would even care if another attack happened? Of course not, it would give him the perfect excuse to invade Iran.

[northzax]

23. why would the UAE attack us, seriously?

we are their number two trading partner, and the US navy is the largest tenant in the port of Dubai. They would lose billlions. And they don't have enough oil to live without the business end.

plus, Iran? Sh'ia; UAE? Sunni. Never the twain shall meet. Iran? Persians. UAE? Arabs.

The UAE exists, and thrives, as a free trade zone. They are the capitalists of the middle east, the Switzerland of the Persian Gulf. They do not want war, especially with the US. They fear Iran more than the US. They make money from business, not from conflict. They exist because the US keeps everyone else in check, why would they kill the golden goose?

[FormerRepublican]

26. Public unrest? Public sentiment? Would they resist massive street...

...protests like the cartoon protests x 1000?

[mike_c]

36. no such events have occurred in UAE...

...despite they're having occurred in (some) other islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree that this supports the previous poster's position that UAE has little to gain by sabotaging its relationship with the U.S.?

[FormerRepublican]

37. I would say that the UAE is the most moderate islamic nation in the...

...Middle East. I would welcome them with open arms into any business in the US that doesn't have national security implications. When we're talking about critical infrastructure, I look more closely and get more picky.

Are you saying those things could never happen in the UAE?

[sandnsea]

40. Yes they have

They're boycotting Danish products, and they've had protests as well. Nothing violent, but they've condemend the cartoons and marched in the streets.

http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=DUB

So what if things go from bad to worse in the ME and the UAE is forced to choose sides. It's just assinine, unless someone doesn't care about country loyalties and that sort of thing anyway.

[sandnsea]

39. Not the UAE, good grief

People within their government and country who would use port operation information, pass it to terrorists, who would attack. Because that's what terrorists do. Nothing complicated about it. It's not the right time for ME countries to have this kind of information about our ports.

Not to mention, what the hell is the point of having a country if we don't have control of any of it anyway.

[Semi_subversive]

31. Blame it on the Clenis.