Arab Americans see bigotry behind ports uproar

[sabra]

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060221:MTFH73493_2006-02-21_20-09-22_N21145126:1

Arab Americans see bigotry behind ports uproar

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - Arab-Americans contended on Tuesday that bias and bigotry, not security concerns, lay behind the uproar over a deal that would place commercial operations at six U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab company.

...

"I find some of the rhetoric being used against this deal shameful and irresponsible. There is bigotry coming out here," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

He said politicians were exploiting fears left over from Sept. 11 to gain advantage in a congressional election year.

"Bush is vulnerable so the Democrats jump on it. The Republicans feel vulnerable so they jump on it. The slogan is, if it's Arab, it's bad. Hammer away," Zogby said.

[LiberalVoice]

1. I am arab and im against this deal. nt

[Nimrod2005]

3. Do you think UAE is islamist country? have you been there?

[TomClash]

11. Wait - you mean Dubai is not a Euro/US/SA subsidiary? nt

[sabra]

4. We should be outraged that a UK company has current control

why can't we (US) manage our own ports?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I agree!!!

They are US ports! It is the responsibility of the US to protect them! We probably could protect them if we weren't gallivanting the world over spreading love...er, democracy. :eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

16. Brits don't count as foreigners,but the ports should be controlled by feds

[xultar]

56. They are Ferners, they talk funny.

[indie_voter]

90. They are a foreign country.

They shouldn't be in control of our ports any more than the UAE.

[Captain Hilts]

142. Most of the world doesn't make the distinction betweeen US/UK. nt

[indie_voter]

219. Sure they do, it's the US/Canada people have trouble with. ;) n/t

[xultar]

37. No shit. What Sabra said.

[indie_voter]

88. I agree. We should manage our ports. n/t

[blm]

12. Not against Arabs, it's the GLOBAL FASCISM of Bush and his cronies

we're against, including the House of Saud, Chinese Industrialists, British financiers, etc....

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

17. I KNEW there was something suspicious about you....

:hi:

And kidding aside, I agree with the OP that there is indeed a great deal of bigotry involved in much of the criticism we're hearing. On the other hand, if we can get past the bigotry there really is a question of fundamental importance here: how much can any nation afford to outsource the operation of important infrastructure? I mean, prior to the sale of the ports operator to a state-run business in UAE, it was operated by a British corporation (and without any outcry that I'm aware of). What's really happening here is simply the transfer of one outsource to another, but the port operations have already been outsourced for some time. Is EVERYTHING in America about money? The lowest bidder? What happened to the notion that you get what you're willing to pay for, and if you only want the least expensive services, you're likely to get the worst bargain?

[EuroObserver]

81. 'Free market' in vital infrastructure? Isn't it still called Reaganomics?

Seems to me port security is the same issue whoever actually owns the facilities. What you want to be concerned about is correct regulation and dutiful management of same - to be overseen by competent local/national/international authorites, of course. If a foreign company owns an office building in Manhattan, for example, it has to comply with NYC fire regulations, for example. So, it seems to me, it's the infamous *Co and the cronies at Homeland Insecurity who need to be replaced by those who can regulate properly, rather than the shareholders in whatever activity. Or, of course, rethink the whole 'global free market' economic philosophy (which may not be an entirely bad idea...)

On the bigotry front, the Financial Times had this to say tuesday:

Paranoia about Dubai ports deal is needless

The current furore in Washington about the takeover of P&O, the UK-based ports operator, by Dubai Ports World says more about the United States Congress than the United Arab Emirates. The bluster about national security conceals one of the uglier faces of US protectionism - the one with the slightly racist tinge.

/more...

While bashing * and cronies is vital and necessary, of course, surely 'collateral damage' (in this case, again, in international diplomacy and relations) should be avoided as far as possible?

[roguevalley]

188. it never crossed my mind to consider race. The British may have

had the ports now, but they never helped terrorists like UAE apparently has nor has a British citizen flown a plane into a US building like 2 UAE citizens have. That is what frosts my ass, not the race thing. I prefer us to do our own ports. But given the instability in the UAE part of the world, if we get fucked, let it be from our own people in the us and not ANYONE else in the world. Also, I don't trust anyone * trusts. I would feel the same way if he gave the job to the Swedes.

[smtpgirl]

207. I am not an Arab American

but this deal does not equate with me, except for someone is making a hell of a lot of $.

Why?

[Nimrod2005]

2. I agree with Mr. Zogby!!! Stop the fucken' madness people...

[BushOut06]

7. Why is it madness?

Wouldn't we have reacted the same way if Bush allowed a Saudi firm to operate our nation's busiest airports after 9-11? Didn't we basically lambaste Bush for his cozy relationship with the Saudis? And yet the Saudi government wasn't directly involved in 9-11.

There are indirect ties between UAE and 9-11. They've been posted on this board repeatedly.

[smtpgirl]

211. You know what

This is such a BAD IDEA, doesn't anyone else think so? It is not about bigotry or being xenophobic.

This is about our lives!!!

[smtpgirl]

212. I live about

45 miles from Baltimore and 43 miles away from DC, I don't like this at ALL?

[TheDebbieDee]

5. We can be concerned with their hurt feelings later.........

Right now, we must regain control of the shipment of military equipment from our ports to our soldiers that are overseas.

[TomClash]

8. And on which country's cargo ships do you think

that military equipment is loaded, transported and dsicharged?

[jwirr]

122. So enlighten us - I think it is time the people of this country

learn what has really been going on with "globalization". Just how far the multinational corporations have sold us out.

[TomClash]

189. There are NO American ocean carriers

except barge companies and cruise lines. Sealand was the last to go when it was sold to Maersk in the 90s.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. I am not surprised.

Considering the hate directed at Arabs, I am not surprised they feel this way. Truth be known, it very well may be the motivation of some. That said, the idea that a foreign nation 'guards' our ports makes me very nervous. To me, it nothing but outsourcing gone mad!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MindPilot]

25. First off, it wasn't 19 Brits who drove airplanes into buildings

But putting that aside, I think the reason no-one had a problem with the British company is because we didn't know about it. Port security is something so important, it should be handled by law enforcement and the military, not a private company from any other country especially one that cozies up to the Bush administration and has ties to everything from BCCI to 9/11. That's a fact--nothing racist about it.

[regnaD kciN]

29. And it wasn't an Arab who blew up the OKC federal building...

...so, should we prevent federal contracts from going to people from Michigan? :shrug:

[MindPilot]

46. Strawman. eom

[Malikshah]

48. Not straw at all

It's quite apt. Not all Michiganders hate the US.

Not all Arabs hate the US

Many are taking this issue as an opportunity to "safely" air their bigotry.

I'm against it not because it's the UAE, but rather because it's so frikking cronyistic.

It's all PNAC and Carlyle all the time.

Oh-- btw-- ENOUGH with the tired old "it was 19 Arabs" etc. schtick. If folks want to start counting bodies...boy howdy, there are 10s of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

[MindPilot]

51. Thank you for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

It's not about bigotry. It's about national security and outsourcing what should be handled by our own military and law enforcement entities. I don't care if it's the Brits, the UAE or frickin' Micronesia, I don't want to trust anyone but Americans with something as serious as American port security.

And BTW, it was 19 middle-eastern (Arab) men who--according to all the reports--hijacked those airplanes. That is a fact and stating such is not racism anymore than is saying that MLK was a Black man.

[Malikshah]

55. Uh....but folks are using 9/11 as an excuse

as ever--

obfuscation and changing the tenor of the argument in a belligerent fashion never helps discourse.

Thanks for the name-calling though-- makes me feel loved.

[QC]

131. Well, it's actually more a red herring and a non sequitur. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

162. And a crock.

[mondo joe]

118. Tim McVeigh didn't have ties to a government being proposed to manage

our ports, did he?

It't not the race of the terrorist at question.

[smtpgirl]

209. AMEN

It is our national security at risk.

Now McPuffy states that * had no knowledge of this!!! YEAH RIGHT

[High Plains]

71. Port security IS handled by law enforcement and the military

Ask the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.

[smtpgirl]

210. So the freight

travel is done by DP, but what if something happens in a port?

Does the US inspect it? What will go through the ports on the east coast unchecked?

The east has the most important ports in the US

[Missy M]

27. I would guess that most of the country didn't know a.....

UK company was running our ports. I simply assumed an American company was doing that. Therefore, all the uproar now that we know. I don't believe it has anything to do with bigotry for the most part.

[WePurrsevere]

40. No one I know knew that US ports weren't being run by the US. It's just

not something most of us think about nor would it occur to many that they would be run by anyone but a US company.

I don't care if the Irish, English, German's, etc want to run our ports... as far as I'm concerned US ports should be run by an American owned and operated company... or perhaps even our military.

[Lars39]

44. I think the military ought to be in charge of the ports.

If it's military at the borders to get in and out of the country, why isn't it at the sea ports?

[WePurrsevere]

53. Our ports are a type of border so they shouldbe guarded & patroled ...

just as carefully as Mexico and Canada.

We live 3 miles from the US/Canadian border in NY. A few weeks ago we when we crossed the Canadian border the military wasn't there, it was the "normal" Border Police but they were very observent and well run and as much as a nuisense as it can be I now can appreciate their being there (although I don't appreciate them setting up "check points" miles INSIDE the US :grr: ).

As for the military... I don't know if the military were pulled off that duty when Iraq hit. They were there when we crossed about 2 months after 9-11, an Army AB Ranger was the one asking the questions but not this last time when it was just the Border Police.

[High Plains]

72. It's Homeland Security at the borders, not the military

except in an adjunct role.

And it's Homeland Security and the Coast Guard who are in charge of security at ports. Not the port operator.

[jwirr]

125. So if the CG & HLS are in charge what is it the the UAE will be

doing?

[Coastie for Truth]

196. Stevedoring/Longshoring

Manifesting, Operating the cranes, "moving" the trains and "18 wheelers" around the port, short term storage/warehousing of containers, ship chandlering, feeding ship movement schedules to the Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration, etc.; maintenance beyond what the ship's company can accomplish but below a "shipyard availability."

[twenty4blackbirds]

183. If a company is going to "run" the ports...

... then how does it matter what country that company comes from?

If the "running" of the ports is a matter of vital national security, it should be done by a government agency, and paid for out of taxation.

If, on the other hand, it's a business, then it should be given to whoever puts in the best bid. American, British, Russian, Afghan, Chinese... it makes no difference.

After all, how much happier would you be if Enron or Halliburton were doing it?

[mondo joe]

194. Are you suggesting all countries pose an identical risk?

Firstly, I don't think ANY other country should manage our ports.

But in the scenario that it WILL happen, certainly some countries would be preferable to others based on a hist of factors.

If you like an analogy consider babysitting --- you wouldn't assume any babysitter is as good (or as safe) as any other. Would you?

[Vetinarii]

199. It's not that all countries are the same

Of course they're not.

But the important distinction isn't between US companies and foreign ones: it's between governments, which are theoretically accountable to their voters, and any company. What reason do you have to think that American companies are any safer than foreign ones operating in America?

That's why vital security interests are managed by the government. Bush doesn't try to outsource the army or the navy; on the contrary, he's the one who created the Dept of Homeland Security, a huge government-run bureaucracy whose mandate is to spy, vigorously and intrusively, on private citizens.

But if you're going to hand a job to a private company, then it's more than a little hypocritical to get worked up about who owns that company. After all, it's in the nature of companies that they can be bought and sold. The US company to whom you award the contract today could be sold to an Australian tomorrow.

Bottom line: if it's national security (and quite frankly I haven't seen any convincing argument that it is), then the gummint should be doing it. No-one else.

[mondo joe]

201. But many of us HAVE said our government should be doing it.

And that's my position.

But at the same time, if it's NOT going to be our government there are better and worse choices among all other parties.

I don't think it's the least hypocritical to get worked up about who owns that company - to the contrary, I think it's an important factor.

[smtpgirl]

214. I agree with you mondo joe

Everyone has some type of prejudice, but in the Govt. should be doing this since 9/11.

So the quip our nation is safer is complete total bullshit!!!

That is all * talks about 9/11, now the tables are turning on him.

[MADem]

226. As opposed to THEIR GOVERNMENT--this is NOT a private Arab company

And people just do not get it. The UAE is led by SEVEN GUYS--seven guys who got their power from their daddies....absolute rulers, and they make up the Supreme Council. It is a freaking DICTATORSHIP disguised as a monarchy (call the bastards Kings, and somehow that makes it nicer--nicer than WARLORD or DESPOT, I guess). These seven guys own everything worth having in the UAE--INCLUDING THIS COMPANY.

The Brit company that had the ports before this was not a STATE OWNED company. This one is--basically, a foreign GOVERNMENT will be running our ports if the deal goes through. I have a problem with that.

[pocket]

13. this is a bigotted country

no way around it

[itcfish]

15. My Family is

Iranian, and I would be very upset if they gave the security contract to an Iranian firm.

[madmom]

18. isn't there a clip somewhere, where bush says.. we will not

"have relations" with countries that have ties to terrorism. I can't remember exactly what he said but that's the gist of it. Anyone have that link?

[catmother]

31. that's right. he did say that. i don't understand his reasoning and

why this deal slipped through without even congress knowing about it.:crazy:

[CJCRANE]

86. Didn't he say

"he who harbors the terrorists is with the terrorists". Then went on to carpet bomb Afghanistan. When Osama slipped over the border to Pakistan he then conveniently dropped the idea.

[politicaholic]

19. Isn't this the same administration that supports racial profiling...

because its just common sense? A "no brainer" as they love to say.

[DBoon]

20. Imagine the uproar if a French company was going to operate ports

nt

[Psephos]

123. Seems reasonable, considering that UAE is a better ally than France

People here also seem to forget that Chirac is a product of the right wing. How'd his recent line about using nukes against terrorists go down with y'all? Made me choke.

Peace.

[MADem]

227. No, if you want to make the analogy, ya gotta say the French GOVERNMENT

This company is owned by the LEADERS of the UAE. It is not a private concern, it is a UAE GOVERNMENT asset.

[anitar1]

21. Who planted this POS ? I trust nothing and no one

these days. If Bushitler wants it, he gets it.They have reached a point of total confidence in their almighty power.We protest, they spin with the help of their media buddies.

[WePurrsevere]

33. Oh Bush wants it alright. "Dubai company ... has ties to administration"

s reported on DU HERE:

Mercury News: http://tinyurl.com/nzrws

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

[wordpix2]

110. This whole sale is for the CABAL's profts,, not the American people

Note that both Snow and Sanborn are connected to BOTH DP World and BushCo.

snip:

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

[BanzaiBonnie]

22. Let them call us names, I don't care

I would feel the same about any, other than a US corporation doing the leasing. Call me protectionist or whatever.

[StrafingMoose]

23. Once again, half of the peole and all of the MSM is beside the point...

It's about giving away the control of the lungs of your economy to foreign entities, not "these evil terrorists might get in there trough these!". As we already seen, people willing to do such attacks don't need control over 6 of your ports to perpetrate these.

[Jacobin]

24. but but but, I thought we were in a "Global War On Terror" (tm)

And the UAE supports terrorist causes and 2 of the hijackers were UAE citizens?

How is this bigotry?

Would we have sold the Japanese our ports in WWII?

(Note to Dems: see how this is done?)

[Miss Chybil]

26. I don't want Canada, France, England, Egypt, Germany OR the UAE

controlling OUR ports. They are OUR ports. This has nothing to do with race, or ethnicity. I don't want the Chinese, or Pakistanis or the Irish controlling our ports. They need to take the race card right out of this game.

[knitter4democracy]

61. I agree.

I'm mad that a British company was in charge in the first place. I'm mad that a foreign government with known ties to Al Qaeda will be in charge of our ports if Bush gets away with this. I'm not mad that it's an Arab country--just mad that it's a foreign government with known ties to terrorists.

[AndyA]

28. Don't pull the bigotry card on us!

This has nothing to do with bigotry, it has everything to do with the security of the United States of America, and its ability to PROTECT itself against those who would do us harm.

It does not make sense for a foreign government, even a friendly one, to operate areas that could be security risks if compromised. Regardless of whether it's British, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, whatever. This is a job that needs to be taken IN HOUSE. PERIOD.

[shireen]

30. I'm opposed to the sale, but not because of Arab bigotry.

I'm sure there's a streak of anti-Arab sentiment running in some of the idiot people who oppose this sale. But not all.

If UAE or another Arab country buys it and there's a security breach that results in a terrorist attack, many Americans will take leave of their common sense, blaming the entire Arab world for it, not the small group of whackos who perpetrated the attack. If we have another neocon whacko like Bush in power, more bombs will fall in the Middle East, more innocent people will get maimed and killed, and the world will hate us even more.

But if a US company buys it, and there is a security breach that results in a terrorist attach, we can all scream about homeland security incompetence, prosecute the negligent morons who let it happen, and have more rabid political finger-pointing. That's so much better than bombing the UAE.

This is not bigotry against Arabs. For me, it's my utter distrust and disdain for the whole damn stupid self-righteous self-destructive human species!

[catmother]

42. you are absolutely right and if there is another terrorist attack

i fear for the arabs who live HERE. after 9/11, here in phoenix 2 sikh men were killed because they were mistaken for arabs.:dilemma:

edited for spelling.

[wordpix2]

32. American to ArabAmericans: It IS a security issue, esp. when managers,

workers so far HAVEN'T BEEN SCREENED and there is no plan we know of re: screening.

It's unfortuante people have to be screened but then again, we live post-911. And do you want a child molester teaching your kid? Same idea having UAE in charge of major ports.

[xultar]

34. Well, let's let Israel run their ports.

[Jacobin]

36. Bwaahahahahaha

I'm lovin it

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

41. That would be a pip to see.

Just the suggestion would cause heads to explode.

[xultar]

54. Better than nukes I say. Let's give it a whirl. I'd love to see us all

get along. BUT if Arab-Americans are gonna play the race card then I've got more decks than they can ever think of putting on the table.

So if they wanna play.

This sistah is ready to play BABY! Bring it!

:rofl:

[sendero]

82. Bingo..

.... I'm not going to let someone tag me and try to make me feel like a bad person because I don't want another country populated with unfriendly elements running my ports.

Stick and stones...

[wordpix2]

89. not a bad idea. Israel is good on security issues & Israel didn't do 911

[wordpix2]

91. one of the pundits suggested US nationalize own ports. Good idea, I think

[angryxyouth]

213. Speaking of Jews,

If there was an attack on these ports, not only would a giant percentage of the US population be affected, but within that percentage, a huge percentage, in-fact a majority percentage of US Jews would be affected. That is a lot of Israel's base. :patriot:

[mac56]

35. You know what? I just don't care.

nm

[Inland]

38. Sorry, pukes, 9/11 changed everything.

They hammered us for five years on why liberty, peace, prosperity, questioning the president, civil service and congressional oversight had become passe because of national security concerns.

But when it comes to rewarding foreign buddies of Bush's cronies, it's business as usual, no security issues with regard to the thousands of containers coming through our ports every day. Montana gets it's Homeland Security pork, UAE gets it's contracts, Bush gets his quid pro quo somewhere and theres' NO WORRIES.

[mac56]

39. brilliant!

nm

[flashdebadge]

60. joe six pack will never know the difference either.

[jwirr]

129. Oh I think even joe six pack is upset over this one. It goes

against their machismo to ask help to protect themselves!!!

[antonialee839]

43. If Arab Americans were running our ports, I wouldn't have a problem.

As it is, we don't know who will be running our ports, except for a few main players.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. I agree!

The operative word being "American." No foreign government or foreign private business should patrol our ports!

[Darranar]

65. Why not?

Is US private business somehow better than UAE private business, or Japanese private business for that matter?

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Yes.

When it comes to national security, it should only fall to the US. It actually should be protected by the military.

You support foreign governments/businesses providing our security?

[Darranar]

74. I don't particularly support any business providing our security.

Though I was under the impression that the company would be managing US ports, not securing them.

[Behind the Aegis]

78. Managing or securing them...

...it should be an American group; not British, not Indian, not Chinese, not UAE, not any foreign nation. I agree that a only the US military should be securing our ports, but until that happens, then American companies will have to suffice.

[wordpix2]

94. supposedly, Coast Guard is in charge of port security. Does CG know it?

I think the company is in charge of managing and Coast Guard in charge of security.

Of course, we all know how well it went during the Katirna crisis so I'm sure BushCabal has it all under control./:sarcasm:

[Coastie for Truth]

195. The Coast Guard was the only government agency to RESPOND to Katrina

and, when I was in the Coast Guard, back in the "Old Guard" when Coasties were made of Iron and boats were made of wood --

and you had to qualify in a "Tall Ship" to get into the Coast Guard

<>




and we had wooden hulled sailing ships, like Revenue Cutter BEAR

<>

on the Alaskan Patrol, and under the command of

<>

Captain - Commodore Mike Healy (first African-American Captain-Commodore).

The Coast Guard is in charge of Port Security --

this is the Port Security Officer Badge ---

<>

I earned it and I wore it - New Orleans LA

<>

[wordpix2]

92. gotta point: those running the ports will be BushCabal if we let this go

through

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Exactly. I think there's plenty of prejudice out there

that's hard to dispute. And even more ignorance.

But in this case, that's not the problem.

A foreign country -- one with some shaky ties to international terrorism -- is being handed control of our major ports. This isn't a question of prejudice, it's a question of security.

[PhilipShore]

45. PR attorneys for corrupt UAE Sheiks see bigotry behind ports uproar

[MindPilot]

49. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I believe we have a winner!

[neuvocat]

50. The U.S. presence in Iraq is no different then.

They don't hate U.S. Soldiers because of all the death and destruction and torture they're causing, they just hate them because they are americans.

I've never heard more pointless drivel.

[VegasWolf]

52. Bush is such a uniter, not a divider.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[wordpix2]

95. yeah, he HAS united the Dems and Repigs against his highness King Geo W.

[arwalden]

57. Oh Dear... More Protests!

:eyes:

There'll be rioting in the streets, burning of flags, and dozens killed because some of them are "offended" again.

[Hatalles]

202. Wow...

... I suggest reading your post one more time. :wow:

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. And they're right to

This is so racist it isn't even funny. Some way to win back Congress...:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

63. How is it racist?

Most people don't want any foreign nation or even a foreign company running the security of our ports.

What if the company were based out of Tel-Aviv? Would you still find arguments against giving them a contract patrolling our shores "racist?"

Could some of the protests be about race? From the right, perhaps, but even most of them agree they don't care what nation it is...it should be the US doing the patrolling!

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. The British company ran these very ports for years

And nobody said boo. All of a sudden, the company is being sold to an Arab concern, and there are indignant outcries across the land? And racism has nothing whatever to do with it? Gimme a break. At the very least, the "security-minded" Democrats are playing to the out-and-out racists on the right as a wedge. Maybe this is how we win, but it sure fucking stinks to high heaven, I'll tell ya that.

[madmom]

116. the British company was privately owned NOT state owned.

[0007]

127. Not true!

[QC]

134. The Brits aren't funding terrorists,

so that's a pretty bogus comparison.

[IndianaGreen]

147. No, but they are creating terrorists in Iraq!

Their video of beating Iraqi teens should have recruited quite a few new terrorists.

[mondo joe]

149. Indeed. Do you want to hand over the ports to disaffected Iraqi youth?

Or do you prefer your terrorism supports to be a little more in the stealth mode?

[IndianaGreen]

151. We are the ones creating terrorists!

Why did we keep troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War?

Why do we support the oppression of the Palestinians?

Why do we invade other countries, bomb their cities and villages, torture and murder their inhabitants?

Why do we send Christian missionaries on the footsteps of our troops?

Why do we fuck over the entire world?

[mondo joe]

154. Well now you admit there ARE terrorists.

That's progress.

Is your suggested remedy handing over control of our ports to those terrorists?

[IndianaGreen]

157. Created by our imperialist policies!

Change the policies, and you will go a long way in draining that swamp!

[mondo joe]

161. So you admit there ARE terrorists. Do you think they should be in charge

of our ports or not?

[IndianaGreen]

163. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world!

And the emir of UAE is not a terrorist, he is a capitalist. Bin Laden would love to topple every monarchy in the Gulf.

[mondo joe]

166. Those terrorists you say we created -- should we give them our ports?

Yes or no?

[IndianaGreen]

169. We are not giving our ports to terrorists,

we have given our ports already to transnational corporations that only owe allegiance to their profits.

BTW, I don't hear you complain about the Carlyle Group who has a stake in this deal too!

I don't care, go on with your Crusade against anything Islamic, print some cartoons while you are at it. In the end, you will be doing us all a favor when the US is forced out of the Middle East altogether, as it is being forced out of Latin America.

[mondo joe]

171. Not terrorists? No - just states that support terrorists, with

abyssmal records on basic human rights for their own citizens. There's a cartoon for you -- or are you opposed to free speech as well?

And I'm not complaining about Carlyle because it's not the topic of this thread.

[QC]

174. Yeah, and you haven't said anything about Prada handbags,

maple syrup, or palmetto bugs either. Why not? What are you hiding? Why won't you talk about these things? You're hiding something, aren't you?

[IndianaGreen]

175. The topic of thread is "Arab Americans see bigotry behind ports uproar"

And I'm not complaining about Carlyle because it's not the topic of this thread.


How about checking the OP?

[mondo joe]

176. I'm on topic - bogus accusations of racism.

You want a Carlyle thread, start one.

[smtpgirl]

216. Carlyle

has their hands in everything.

I was offered a job there about 8 years ago, I rescinded the job GLADLY

[smtpgirl]

215. because the US

has always fucked the entire world, the colonists even fucked the indians, that is the Aryan way

[wordpix2]

96. I see your point now but main issue should be: ARE THE PORTS SECURE?

I'm sure if we dig, the answer will be NO! because BushCo is a lying bunch of incompetent dangerous morons.

[alcibiades_mystery]

101. That may be the main issue from our perspective

But you can't seriously tell me that the way the right is reacting isn't a symptom of anti-Arab racism, and that we aren't almost gleefully stoking that fire since it proves such a powerful wedge. Don't tell me that, because I see many threads pointing to the overt racist statements on FR and other right wing complaints. It is obvious that at least some of the US reaction to this deal is fueled by racism, pure and simple, and that we on the Left are stoking that reaction to some degree because of its political effectiveness. That's manifest. And maybe this is how we win back Congress, and that would even be a good thing, but the whiff of it in my nostrils is repulsive. To say the least.

[Psephos]

121. I completely agree with you

Smells like an Atlanta landfill in August.

To many, sticking with principles means less than taking advantage of a political opportunity.

I am in favor of the ports deal unless someone presents evidence that security would be compromised. I am also in favor of sending a message to the world that we don't by default think of Arabs as bogeymen.

Peace.

[stickdog]

182. People can agree on an issue for different reasons.

For pukes, it's xenophobia.

For anyone with a brain, port security shouldn't be outsourced. Period.

[Psephos]

198. Port security is not being outsourced; it remains under US control

This is a major misconception. The Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security, and local port authorities are, and will remain, the providers of port security.

UAE is a strong friend of the US, and not a friend of Al Qaeda or other radical Islamists. Not doing this deal will harm our interests far more than moving it forward, for it broadcasts a message that US friendship in the Middle East is not worth much. That would be the true threat to security.

Peace.

On edit: it sends another message too - that we paint all Arabs with the same tar brush. I don't see how that can be reconciled with progressive thinking.

[Megahurtz]

98. And THERE it is.....

that proverbial race card.:eyes:

Sit back and relax! Arabian is not a race.

There, now do you feel better?

I don't feel safe with these guys running our ports, period.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. But the Brits were fine, eh?

The racism is overt and manifest. It is the same racism that causes hysterical nuts to think that a band of Arab musicians (oh, but Arab isn't a "race," see? :sarcasm:) are ready to hijack an airplane because more than one of them went to the bathroom on a 6 hour flight. This woman was roundly criticized on these very boards, as is the practice of "racial" profiling in general (I of course put "racial" in quotation marks, because everyone knows, as you say, that "Arab" isn't a race :sarcasm:). Same logic, extended basis. Yeah, there's no racism at all here, Arab not being a "race."

I mean, puh-leez.

[mondo joe]

109. I feel a hell of a lot better with the Brits than almost any other nation.

But I prefer to not turn the ports over to any nation.

[stickdog]

184. No the Brits were NOT fine!

What part of "outsourcing our port security is nuts" don't you understand?

The whole "the fact that a private Brit company who got a port security contract pre-9/11 didn't cause as much ruckus ase a UAE govt-owned company getting the contract post-9/11 MUST mean that EVERYBODY's racist" argument is quite ridiculous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

200. Yeah, that's why there was such a big outcry over the Brits running things

Oh yeah, there wasn't.

You can say its ridiculous again and again. The simple fact is that the issue has caught on when it is the UAE, and nobody gave a flying fuck when it was the Brits. The laughable doublespeak in this very thread is typical: the Brits don't support terrorism, it says, and besides, port security shouldn't be outsourced, period. Uh huh.

[Megahurtz]

204. At least the Brits didn't bomb our country, or

harbor terrorists.

I really think you need to open your eyes.
You are being blinded by The Race Card.

[jwirr]

137. How many other countries do you know that are willingly

allowing their safety/security into the hands of foreign countries. I was assuming that even the insurgency in Iraq is pretty much telling us to let them run their own country. I am not a racist BUT I am anti globalization. Everything in America is not for sale. This deal is nothing more than "free market" globalization going too far.

[Ksec]

59. Call the wambulance

The Arabs see racism. I see the Arabs using the race card.

[madmark]

62. it would be too damn easy for al quada to infiltrate a uae company

and then have operational access to our ports; that's the reason the deal is bad, its that simple.

[wordpix2]

97. Olbermann's terror expert said that's not the issue, PORT SECURITY IS

He again reminded us that al Queda can infiltrate anywhere, and now prefers to infiltrate US or W. European companies as they are less suspect. And there are terror cells around the world, not just in the UAE and other Arab countries.

Three areas are of concern besides that: 1) PORT SECURITY; 2) Carlyle Group/John Snow et al: who is making money in this deal? and 3) examination of the secret committee's approval process.

The UAE/Arab fear issue IS an issue for most Americans, but it's not a winning issue for Dems. We need to WIN this argument and the 2006 ELECTIONS and we can't do this by acting with prejudice.

[madmark]

186. of course al quada has a shot at infiltrating anywhere; but why

make it easier particularly with sensitive transit infrastructure. Keeping the UAE from controlling the port operation is a "Port Security" issue. I would agree that the real reason Bush is behind this port deal ultimately has some as of yet unspecified crony component. My reasons for opposing this port deal has nothing to do with elections, it is just simply awful for the country. And some dem thinks he is going to lose an election over it somehow, too damn bad.

[Joey Liberal]

64. Bush is nuts to even consider the idea

I have nothing against Arabs, but they do seem to hate us. Look at the reactions to a cartoon.

[Darranar]

66. So do I.

It's very blatant.

[Behind the Aegis]

68. How?

I can't speak for the motivations of those on the right, but those who are liberal have a problem with any foreign government/business 'protecting' our ports. If you read other posts, most of us are pissed off that the British were doing this before this new acquisition.

[Darranar]

73. Do you think the reaction would have been the same

if the company buying the ports was European?

[Behind the Aegis]

76. From the right? Probably not.

From the left? Yes. The only reaction that would have created a change on some of the left is if the company had been Israeli.

[Darranar]

77. From the media. From the politicians in Washington.

Sure, there are left-liberals without bigotry who are opposed to this, I don't doubt that. But the bigotry behind the general reaction - "companies from that region" etc. - is hardly even veiled.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. Then, your hypothetical would better on a right-leaning board.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. Oh, riiiiiight

I remember Schumer and Clinton and all the other Dems up in arms about the British company every day for the last five years. It was a big controversy all across the land, brought up daily on every organ of the Left blogosphere, lead articles in the Nation and mother Jones four times a year. Oh yeah, I remember all that...:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

107. The UK has been a traditional ally to the US. The UAE has a more dubious

distinction.

Besides, I'd rather the UK didn't manage our ports either.

[stickdog]

180. Are you serious? Are you really comparing a PRIVATE Brit company

that got a security contract pre-9/11 to a government-owned UAE company that's getting one post-9/11?

I don't think we have any business outsourcing either one, but the fact that I hadn't yet heard about the Brit contract doesn't make me a racist.

[alcibiades_mystery]

190. Private vs. State-owned

Yeah, that's why :sarcasm:

Oy gewalt.

Do you even hear yourself? What a joke.

[mondo joe]

191. State owned - and look at the state.

If you feel good about entrusting the ports to a repressive regime with ties to terrorism that's fine for you.

I don't support it on either count.

[MasonJar]

69. Sorry, Zogby, this is not racist; this is common sense.

[IndianaGreen]

80. The stench of Islamophobia permeates this thread

Rather than discuss why Bush's friends are profiting from a business deal, all I have heard today from Republicans and Democrats are words that can best be described as Islamophobic.

In America it is okay to bash Muslims and gays!

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. You bet it does

Plenty of faux liberals pretending that this has nothing to do with race.

It's a fucking lie.

[mondo joe]

106. Not Islamophobia -- just Terroristphobia and Bushophobia.

The 911 terrorists had significant ties to the UAE.

That Bush has yet stronger ties doesn't speak well of them.

PS: Funny you mention gays and Islam since the UAE is such a bad place for gays. How do you feel about doing business with THAT?

[IndianaGreen]

113. 911 terrorists lived and planned their attacks in Germany

Your glorious USA treats gays like varmints, and Muslims like terrorists!

[mondo joe]

114. Lived in Germany, lived in the US - but had ties to the UAE.

And as bad as the US record on gays is, it doesn't compare to the UAE.

[QC]

136. As does the stench of sanctimony,

but there's nothing new about that.

[stickdog]

181. Not you, too!

Personally, I don't think Arabs had anything to do with 9/11, but surely you can't actually be in favor of outsourcing our port security to ANYONE?

[Strawman]

218. You think Joe Six Pack is upset about "lax port security?"

I call bullshit. Zogby has a point. Pure bigotry is driving this, regardless of any legit reasons why this is bad for port security.

Joe Six Pack didn't give a rat's ass when journalists were smuggling all kinds of dangerous shit into the country after we decided to waste all of our resources in Iraq. Now their xenophobic asses are freaking out because an Arab owned corporation is going to be operating in the ports. When EVERY Democratic presidential candidate pointed out the horrible job Chimpy had done with port security in 2004, the reaction was (....crickets). They were focused on those scary mobs of Ay-rabs, "as seen on TV," burning shit in the streets and looking generally menacing to mom, baseball, apple pie and everything we hold dear in the good ol' US of A. "Port security is for pussies. We gotta fight em there so we don't gotta fight em here." You can't make a butt kicking country hit out of port security. "Have you forgotten?" Ask the average man on the street who opposes this deal to list one single difference between the security policies of the Dubai company and the one that preceeded it (that they didn't give two shits about) and watch him stammer like a complete moron. It's all about fear of Arabs, and guilt by association.

It's poetic justice for Bush. He swayed the public with fear and hate mongering and now its coming back to bite him in the ass because he's a corporate whore above everything else. If this is the issue that finally takes Bush down, it's fitting, but it is what it is and it says some shitty things about mainstream attitudes toward Arabs in this country.

[high density]

70. I'm also a bigot because I don't like Chinese and Indians taking our jobs

Too bad I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. :eyes:

[goforit]

75. This looks like a plant from the bush's. You've been caught Reuters!!!

[paulthompson]

83. Here's something relevant I posted in another thread

One of my timeline entries:

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. (9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B))

My comments:

To call the UAE lax on terrorism is a gross understatement. The country didn't even have any kind of law against money laundering until 1999, virtually the only country in the world not to even technically have such a law. The UAE is very unique. Look for instance at this quote from the Wall Street Journal, 9/17/03: "To U.S. and global financial-crime investigators, no country in the Middle East is more important than the tiny United Arab Emirates, the financial hub of the Persian Gulf with a long history of lax regulation and a role as a conduit for the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers."

The rulers of the UAE have consistently supported al-Qaeda and other terrorist and criminal groups while at the same time claiming to be a US ally. Even now, the country continues to be the key hub for Victor Bout, the world's most important illegal arms dealer. I don't know if the port company in question has done anything criminal or not, but the fact that they're owned by the UAE government is cause for concern. Further, the problem is, it's nearly impossible to know if they may have done something criminal, because of lack of serious laws and law enforcement in the UAE. As the Financial Times put it, In the UAE, "Western fraud investigators may find a link here or a connection there, with a person suspected of breaking western laws. But in Dubai, and its neighbour Sharjah, trails tend to vanish like wind-blown tracks in desert sands. ... Secrecy keeps everyone guessing - and speculating. ... 'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations'."

Until the UAE achieves something at least remotely approaching the same rule of law as most other countries of the world, trusting any UAE company with such a sensitive role would not be prudent. In many ways, the UAE is a lawless place, almost unique in the world in how the government turns a blind eye to criminal activity. The fact that the royal family has freely associated with bin Laden after he became known as the world's number one terrorist only adds to the concern.

[paulthompson]

85. Here's a bit more

Note UAE government support for the Taliban until 9/11:

Early June 2001: Extensive ISI Support for Taliban Continues
UPI reporters visiting Taliban leader Mullah Omar note, "Saudi Arabia and the (United Arab Emirates) secretly fund the Taliban government by paying Pakistan for its logistical support to Afghanistan. Despite Pakistan's official denials, the Taliban is entirely dependent on Pakistani aid. This was verified on the ground by UPI. Everything from bottled water to oil, gasoline and aviation fuel, and from telephone equipment to military supplies, comes from Pakistan." (UPI, 6/14/01)

Note also that the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, the dominant emirate in the United Arab Emirates, owned 77 percent of BCCI, the notorious outlaw bank shut down in 1991.

Note also how the UAE has been a hub of all kinds of criminal activity connected to al-Qaeda:

Mid-1996-October 2001: Ariana Airlines Becomes Transport Arm of al-Qaeda
In 1996, al-Qaeda assumes control of Ariana Airlines, Afghanistan's national airline, for use in its illegal trade network. Passenger flights become few and erratic, as planes are used to fly drugs, weapons, gold, and personnel, primarily between Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Pakistan. The Emirate of Sharjah, in the UAE, becomes a hub for al-Qaeda drug and arms smuggling. Typically, “large quantities of drugs” are flown from Kandahar, Afghanistan, to Sharjah, and large quantities of weapons are flown back to Afghanistan. (Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01) About three to four flights run the route each day. Many weapons come from Victor Bout, a notorious Russian arms dealer based in Sharjah. (Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02) Afghan taxes on opium production are paid in gold, and then the gold bullion is flown to Dubai, UAE, and laundered into cash. (Washington Post, 2/17/02) Taliban officials regularly provide militants with false papers identifying them as Ariana Airlines employees so they can move freely around the world. A former National Security Council official later claims the US is well aware at the time that al-Qaeda agents regularly fly on Ariana Airlines, but the US fails to act for several years. The US does press the UAE for tighter banking controls, but moves “delicately, not wanting to offend an ally in an already complicated relationship,” and little changes by 9/11. (Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01) Much of the money for the 9/11 hijackers flows though these Sharjah, UAE, channels. There also are reports suggesting that Ariana Airlines might have been used to train Islamic militants as pilots. The illegal use of Ariana Airlines helps convince the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in 1999, but the sanctions lack teeth and do not stop the airline. A second round of sanctions finally stops foreign Ariana Airlines flights, but its charter flights and other charter services keep the illegal network running. (Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01)

Note that these criminal networks still continue to this day. This is from a December 22, 2005 blog entry by Douglas Farah, reporter for the Washington Post who's an expert on Victor Bout:

The UAE has the added onus of being the center of operations for the illicit flights of Viktor Bout and his empire. Even though the UN has now taken steps that allow countries to step up enforcement action on Bout, the UAE has not lifted a finger to find or halt his now-banned flights.

http://www.douglasfarah.com/archive/2005_12_01_archive.shtml

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

84. Tough!

No foreign countries, Anglo, Aryan, Arab or space alien should operate our ports. Period. This should not be outsourced to any country.

[wordpix2]

87. Olbermann Terror Expert : real issue is PORT SECURITY, not UAE

sale (this on tonight's Olbermann show which is very good on port issues). Expert says terrorists think it's better to infiltrate an American or other western company where there's not much suspicion rather than go through a Dubai company that DHS et al. will be watching.

I think that we cannot trust * and Gang to have vetted this UAE sale and company properly. How can we trust BushCo did anything like this properly and thoroughly after their incompetent, debased, disgusting performance in IRAQ and KATRINA? Show us your port security, BushCo. Show us your process to ensure security in this sale and agree to give Congress 45 instead of 25 days to agree with you.

This has a lot to to with Sec. of Treas. Snowjob and his ties to CXX and at least indirectly, Carlyle Group and its desire to go into transportation investment. Is Snowjob a member of Carlyle, anyone know? Of course, BFEE needs to keep its inner cabal as the "power elite" so it would make sense that Snow and Carlyle are tied through BF.

Bush has never vetoed a single Repig spending bill from Congress since becoming presChimp, which is also agitating the so-called Repig leadership and Republicans in general. Now * is threatening to veto any bill from his own party that aims to look more closely into the UAE sale and port security. Bush is acting like the spoiled rotten grown man he is. I agree with the Republican who lost his son in 9-11. "Bush is insane."

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Good points. nt

[redmaniac]

93. completely new

wow i cant hardly believe after all these years native americans STILL DONT HAVE PORT AUTHORITY!!..THIS IS MY FIRST TRY.. I FEEL KINDA GOOFY ALREADY...

[blue cat]

Welcome redmaniac. nt

[blue cat]

120. Welcome redmaniac. nt

[Megahurtz]

208. Hey! Not a bad idea!

They hand our Ports over to all kinds of foreign control and claim that they have no choice
when they can take care of the Ports themselves and hire Real American People!!!
Wow! What a concept!:think:

I am against any kind of foreign control over our Ports.

[WinkyDink]

108. They're right! I'm prejudiced against BOMBS.

[mzmolly]

111. Did they see bigotry when we attacked Iraq? How bout in our march

to Iran/Syria?

[intheflow]

112. I'm an Arab-American, and I think the port deal is bullsh*t.

I don't think it's prejudiced to be against foreign ownership of US ports.

[wordpix]

192. agree with you---we need to nationalize port protection, management &

STOP OUTSOURCING NATIONAL SECURITY

[jwirr]

115. All Americans can help to protect our ports but I do not want

any other COUNTRY to have a hand in this. They are vital to our national security. This is no different than being upset because we borrow money from other countries to support our spending. When we allow this kind of OUTSOURCING we are letting others get a hold on our security. I am just as upset to learn that it was first outsourced to Europeans.

[bonito]

117. LOL

:nuke: :hide: :dilemma:

[dchill]

119. Bigotry and racism aside...

it's still wrong to outsource American security. If that's even more of a problem that in-sourcing it to Republican Amurikan Korporations.

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. I say we take back our ports from all the countries and just be done with

it.

But, just to add fuel to the fire, we weren't attacked by the british, we were attacked by Arab muslims.

[cdsilv]

126. Haven't read the thread, don't intend to. Who attacked us on 9/11?

Africans? Jews? Rednecks? (in truth, they did attack us at Oklahoma City, and I am a redneck and am deeply ashamed that some of my folks did that), Latinos?

No, it was Arabs. Muslims. Islamists. Osama Bin Laden adherents? GWB funded crazies?

But perhaps we should get beyond racial/religious stereotypes and realize that the people who attacked us perhaps had valid reasons. Maybe we have trampled on their religious beliefs? Perhaps we have exploited their natural resources to fill our gas tanks and not given them $$ for value received?

I don't know. When I was in college (late 70's and early 80's), I met many Arabs. Iranians, Iraqis, and Saudis. These folks believed in lifelong friendships and are really good friends. I haven't heard from them in a long, long time, understadably so. Possibly
my fault, as they attempted to justify the Iranian hostage crisis. Perhaps I should try to
contact them. In fact, of the few names I remember, I will.

Nonetheless, they do have legitimate greivances against us and the UK. The US and the UK basically defined the borders of the nations of the middle east by fiat in the early 20th century. And we (the western Allies), decided to give Palestine to the diasporic Jews. Right or wrong, we pissed off alot of Arabs.

Now, the middle east is finally figuring out that they are the 'economic center of the planet', due to their oil wealth. They are finally figuring out that they hold the balls of the world. And they are starting to squeeze.

We either have to figure out how to do without them or militarily dominate them, or better yet, PLEASE, lean to coexist and prosper.

We know what Buschco wants to do. Dominate.... Or, hasten the Judeo-Christian rapture so all the 'faithful' can ascend to heaven.

I really think that the fundamentalist christian faithful (note the lack of caps), are going to be very disappointed when GOD doesn't show up on their timetable....

God has his/her own timetable which will not be influenced by MAN!

(if god exists...)

[iconoclastNYC]

128. The issue is an arab government owning our ports.

Let them race bait us all they want.

[IndianaGreen]

130. Foreign governments OWN the US debt!

How would you like it if countries like China and Saudi began to dump all those T-Bills?

[mondo joe]

132. That's fine.

US Debt is a bad thing.

[IndianaGreen]

138. They dump it, we have to pay for it!

Enjoy!

[mondo joe]

141. I can think of worse.

Can you?

[IndianaGreen]

145. Hell, yes! I can think of much, much, worse: US attack on Iran!

March 20 to 26, 2006: Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis, or « The End of the Western World we have known since 1945 »

The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.

An Alarm based on 2 verifiable events

The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:

- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ;

- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward<1>.

These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system.

http://newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3463&Itemid=85

[mondo joe]

146. Is that all? What a funny defense of the US selling its own security

out - we have foreign debt.

[iconoclastNYC]

135. Our debt cannot wave a NUKE weapon thru a port.

THE UAE could tho. That's why this is important.

[IndianaGreen]

140. Let's check the bogeyman list: Saddam has nukes... check!

Iran has nukes... check!

UAE has nukes... check!

What's next?

Venezuela has nukes... check!

Bolivia has nukes... check!

Cuba has nukes... check!

I don't think that dog will hunt!

[mondo joe]

143. But of that list, only the UAE is complicit in terrorist acts against the

US.

But if you have that much faith in GW Bush's administration I doubt that will matter to you.

[jseankil]

144. I don't understand your post

You don't think there are those that want to harm the U.S. and it's just one big boogyman created by the govt. or....?

[IndianaGreen]

150. The only people harming the US are in the White House

together with their Congressional allies from both parties!

[mondo joe]

152. And no other enemies in the world capable of harm?

Do you think maybe you're being a titch unrealistic?

[IndianaGreen]

170. Apparently you find not fault with US foreign policy...

What's that in the Bible about reaping what you have sown?

[mondo joe]

173. I find plenty of fault with US policy. It's not relevant to the topic.

And I don't care what's in the bible -- though your reference indicates that you support terrorist attacks on the US. Too bad.

[wordpix]

193. oh, come on---there's no evidence the WH perpetrated 911, except to ignore

the many warnings, probably because they're stupid, lazy and like their summer vacations more than national security, not because they themselves sent the planes into the buildings.

Al Qaeda's not a threat? Are you living in a dream world?

[jseankil]

133. UAE scored an F before 9/11

So sorry if we step on some toes but we'd like to see what changes have been made since 9/11 before we allow them to run the ports.

Why does Bush have a problem with this?

[mondo joe]

139. Do they see bigotry in the UAE's treatment of gays?

How about the 2 dozen or so gay men sentenced to 5 years in the UAE?

[Charlie Brown]

153. Right on! I am so sick of being lectured about "tolerance"

from governments that treat the minorities in their own midst worse than dirt, and blame everything on the Jews, even stuff like the Bird Flu and natural disasters.

I don't want the UAE controlling our ports. When their government learns to treat Israelis and other minorities with the same respect that they want from us, then we'll talk.

[mondo joe]

156. Now if more DU posters could remember the UAE isn't better than Apartheid

South Africa -- some may be old enough to remember when progressives didn't want to do business with them either.

[QC]

165. Yes, I remember when progressives did not advocate

for repressive theocracies. Seems like a very long time ago.

And since Indiana bizarrely keeps trying to drag gays into the discussion, here's an interesting article about gays in the UAE.

A United Arab Emirates court has jailed 12 men who were arrested after being discovered preparing for a gay wedding but acquitted another 14 defendants, an official said yesterday.

“Eleven men have confessed to practising homosexuality. They were sentenced to five years in prison (for homosexuality) and one year for obscenity,” the official said.

“Another man was sentenced to one year in prison for obscenity, but was acquitted of homosexuality charges... while 14 others have been released after being found not guilty,” he added....

Last April, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced two Saudis, one Yemeni and a Jordanian to two years in jail and 2,000 lashes after a police raid on an alleged gay party.

[mondo joe]

167. Funny how he can condemn DOMA but not the UAE.

I guess only US based anti gay policy can be criticized.

[IndianaGreen]

155. Let's talk about Clinton and DOMA!

Let's talk about the 2004 Democratic Convention and the refusal by the powers-to-be to recognize the right of gays to enjoy the same rights and privileges as all other Americans.

Let's talk about the homophobia that crops up on this board with far too much frequency!

[Charlie Brown]

158. what has that got to do with the UAE's jailing of gays? n/t

[mondo joe]

159. How many dozen gays did Clinton imprison for being gay?

You're barking up the wrong fucking tree if you think you can equate Clinton or thhe US as a whole with the crimes against gays committed by your friends in the UAE.

If you can condemn Clinton for DOMA why can't you condemn the UAE for worse?

[QC]

168. How many of us did he sentence to 2,000 lashes, stoning,

being thrown from tall buildings, split with swords, etc?

Frankly I find IG's constant, longrunning attempt to draw a false equivalency between gays and some of our most relentless oppressors very offensive.

[leesa]

148. No. The issue is they were involved in the financing of the alleged 9-11

terrorists AND they were one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government...we don't care about that all of a sudden? Just because BushCo was also involved in the financing and direction of 9-11 shouldn't give them a free pass.

[IndianaGreen]

160. hey, the US recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government!

We were negotiating a pipeline deal with the Taliban prior to 9-11.

[mondo joe]

164. As I recall, most progressives opposed that. I guess you didn't.

It must be hard to be on DU and be so staunchly in favor of doing business with regimes with even WORSE human rights track records than Bushco.

[IndianaGreen]

177. Now that Afghanistan is free and women don't have to wear burqas...

but wait, women still wear burqas and our puppet Karzai has a Minister for Morals whose job is to enforce Sharia law in Afghanistan.

Looks like nothing has changed!

[mondo joe]

178. Funny - you've been shouting your support for repressive Islamic

regimes.

Make up your mind, would you?

[fujiyama]

223. Not quite

Atleast not officially.

The US was being lobbied to by the likes of Henry Kissinger.

But the Taliban was officially recognized by only three governments - UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

[ecstatic]

172. I never thought race on this, but I understand that view

Interestly, this ports situation highlights Bush's hypocrisy in regards to his own party's platform of racism and intolerance. His base needs to realize that $$$ are the bottom line for this administration PERIOD. All the social issues that everyone gets riled up about don't mean sht to this Prez. If putting up a Black gay, socialist female onto the Supreme Court put more $$$ in his pocket, he would do it. If "keeping us safe" puts more money in his pocket, he'll keep us safe; but if he can make more money by exposing us to danger, that is the route he will take.

[stickdog]

179. Oh, Jesus, now Bush & Rush are lecturing us NOT to be

xenophobes!

Has hell freezed over yet?

[eridani]

187. Do you suppose that means--

--they are going to stop grabbing people with beards and turbans and sending them elsewhere to be tortures?

[Rex]

217. Frozen over since December 12, 2000

This is the ever down-ward spiral. Rove wanted this to happen just as much as the Egyptian cleric who added three extra toons, sure to cause a riot in the muslim world. Fear, anger, resentment...all trademark moves of the BFEE. We should call him King War-maker from now on.

[madmark]

185. this has nothing to do with arab-americans; it has everything to do

with not allowing a foriegn nation particularly vulnerable to al quada infiltration to acquiring operational control of US ports. If a port security weakness results in a nuke, chemical or biochemical attack, arab-americans are going to die in it just as well as non-arab-americans. No arab-american should be carrying UAE's water on this.

[Roland99]

197. Who pissed in Zogby's Wheaties?

[Hatalles]

203. Islamophobia is inadvertently being used as a lever by some on the left.

We need to be consistent and demand that no foreign entities should be in charge of our ports. Americans should be in charge of our own security. My only concern is that some on the left are inadvertently using Islamophobia as a lever to dislodge Bush's base and potentially win some of them over. We can still criticize Bush, however, we need to focus on the larger problem without sinking to the right-wing's xenophobic lows and perpetuating those ugly sentiments -- our security should not be outsourced to ANY OTHER nation.

[iamthebandfanman]

205. agreed

but i never heard the term 'islamophobia' until today.

[Hatalles]

206. I hadn't heard it until a month or two ago...

... but I've seen it used more and more often by Liberals, Muslims, Arabs, etc recently.

[Megahurtz]

220. Agreed. n/t

[mondo joe]

221. There's nothing we can do about the motivations of racists.

If they happen to be on the right side - for a change - but for wrong reasons, it's a shame but not our issue.

Moreover, even those motivated in part by racism may at the same time see what a bad, dumb idea this is.

[Hatalles]

222. But it's my issue, Joe...

As an American Muslim, I'm particularly sensitive to what I see as a growing Islamophobic atmosphere in a society I was born and raised into. As you noted, those particular RWers are on the right side for the wrong reasons... and I find this very problematic. I don't think they can realize the stupidity of their xenophobia when their hateful appetites are being satisfied by the story. For this reason, I can't understand why we can't frame the controversy in such a way that does not single out Arabs or Muslims. Doing this will not crush xenophobia... but it won't perpetuate it either.

:shrug:

[fujiyama]

224. .

.

[fujiyama]

225. I don't see why Arab Americans

should be concerned over this particular case. After all, this is about a foreign government actually handling port operations.

OTOH, if this was a US based firm with an Arab American heading it and people started fussing, then I would probably say that it was a case of racism.

But that's not the case. Most cries of opposition being racist is coming from the likes of Rove, O'Liely, and Limbutt- ass holes that favor torture and mass detention of Arabs.

Hell, this administration has detained possibly hundreds of Arab Americans with no charges, and no access to even a lawyer. It has attacked two Islamic countries - one which had not even the slightest justification, and has tortured hundreds, possibly thousands in Abu Ghraib, Guantonomi, and other countries by proxt...

That sounds a bit more racist than opposing a deal to hand over operations to a foreign government owned firm.