Dubai's Royal Family FURIOUS At Repugs & Dems-Threaten Retaliation

[kpete]

March 9, 2006


Dubai threat to hit back
By Roxana Tiron

Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.



http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

[Dem Agog]

1. Two words...

Fuck. Them.

[stop the bleeding]

Three more words

Fuck the Bushies:nuke:

[Booster]

45. Three more words "bring it on".

[PaulaFarrell]

56. are you being sarcastic?

wasn't that what bush said to the Iraqi insurgents about 2 or 3 years ago?

[Booster]

94. Sorry, I should have hit the little "sarcasm" thing. Wish we had one

for mocking the Dimson.

[Stockholm]

57. LOL You mean two words

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x614427

[gilpo]

85. exactly!

[JNelson6563]

86. Funny stuff.

They are such morans. :toast:

[goforit]

135. Well said!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Well, now we're facing the "careless people" who create war for others.

They don't get their way they stamp their feet and wage war.

I say we take back all our ports. 9/11 gives us that right.

[stop the bleeding]

16. All of them not just the UAE's

take them all

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. All of them.

It's been the weakness of our country for years. I'm sure that there are going to be some very wealthy Americans who are going to be unhappy about it, because once those ports get the scrutiny they deserve, those one percenters are going to lose their back doors to whatever illegal business activity which have given them the edge over the rest of us.

[SOS]

76. On to the truth

Careful examination of what is in those containers might be very painful to the 1 % ers.
Perhaps that's why the government has shown no interest in inspections.

[donkeyotay]

122. Why, what would happen to the War on Drugs

if there was 100% inspection? You've got to have drugs to have a war on them, and you've got to have terra to have a WOT. War is very good business.

Sorry about your kids!
Bummer about your retirement!
Too bad about yer edducation!
Good luck with the new Hooverville!

[adriennui]

14. you took those words right out of my mouth

[spanone]

43. Three MORE words...Bring it on.

[melissinha]

63. same words I picked.

:kick:

[roguevalley]

112. Three words: Nationalize their shit.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Well, now they really are more appropriate targets than Saddam.

Let's sell them the airports!

[amber dog democrat]

3. Why is this not a surprise?

Lets see what kind of allies they really are.

[atreides1]

5. They were never allies

Just another tyranical government that we made nice with, so that the US military could have a foothold in the region.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Right. What we've learned with Abramoff is that they don't really know

each other, they're not really friends. They just smile for the cameras and cut deals that make themselves rich.

[PaulaFarrell]

23. Allies like us?

Who are happy to use other countries for our benefit and then throw our toys out of the pram when we don't like something they do? Or are our allies supposed to stick by us regardless of how we treat them and whether it's in their own interests or not? Like supporting us in the so-called war on terror when it causes problems with their own citizens and makes them a target themselves?

The UAE is probably the most westernised Arab country and it has tried to do business on western terms. Now it is being told it can't play. I can understand their anger. From their viewpoint it is discrimination pure and simple. These politicians were happy for a British company to run these container ports but somehow an Arab company is not acceptable. The hypocrisy is sickening.

[WinkyDink]

47. GET REAL. This isn't racism. This is about SECURITY.

Anybody who thinks that a nation that is THE conduit for heroin and terrorism $$ in the ME is the security equivalent of our cultural, linguistic, political, social, and familial ally that is the U.K., IS WAY OFF BASE.

And here's a word to the Dubai royalists: without US, you're Taliban meat. Think about it.

[PaulaFarrell]

49. DP would not be in charge of security

They'd be in charge of loading and unloading container ships. In charge from the other side of the world. Americans would still be running things on the ground. And don't forget, all of the 7/7 bombers were British.

As for your last remark, that's a bit sick. It is association and cooperation with the west that has made the UAE a target as much as anything. And how is it that we are protecting the royal family of Dubai from the taliban when we can't even get the fuckers out of AFghanistan, where we've still got active troops? think about it.

[WinkyDink]

55. Well, WHATEVER. All of a sudden now, Dubai has Americans rushing to its

defense.

[PaulaFarrell]

58. not near as many as are rushing to vilify it

guess I'm just a contrarian.

[WinkyDink]

61. Check out this DU thread. You're welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2155366

[PaulaFarrell]

66. it's irrelevant

None of this mattered to the majority of people posting on this topic before DPW had the temerity to make this bid. In fact, it just strengthens my point that people immediately began rushing around trying to find every bit of dirt they could about the UAE. If no company based in a country with poor human rigths was allowed to operate in the US, then a huge number of companies would be barred. More importantly, no American company would be allowed to do business on foreign soil based on what has happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

[roguevalley]

113. Al Qaeda has said they have infiltrated the UAE gov't. All they need

to do is have a member or two in the management team sent over. THink about it.

[PaulaFarrell]

125. Yeah, it's that easy

one little manager amongst the hundreds of workers (Americam) working in the container port. Of course, the manager will also have to have the collusion of the ship's crew, and the workers at the foreign port where the container is loaded. And the coast guard. STill, I can see your point. Arabs are scary.

[roguevalley]

128. interesting that you should shove the race card in my face. it would

take only a small group of determined people to make something happen. of course, in a perfect world it wouldn't. the UAE has already been infiltrated by al-qaeda. that's what happens when the governments over there cause nothing but despair in their populace by their economic inequities and sit on their big fat asses and not keep track of things. Of course, that too probably makes me an arab hater. right?

[PaulaFarrell]

132. Virtually ever country in the world has been infiltrated by Alqaeda

The 7/7 bombers were all British, so yeah, you're right it takes just a few to make something happen. ANd they can be any nationality and live anywhere. If you want port security, well, that can be improved, but it's a national matter, and quite a separate issue.

[roguevalley]

137. I agree. I don't know what can be done with all the world a seive

but each country needs to step up to the plate and give them a run for their money. Thanks to George, this will be our chore for the next three generations.

[Occulus]

60. So we, as a people, aren't allowed to label something "not for sale"? n/t

[PaulaFarrell]

72. These container ports were sold years ago

I actually agree that they never should have been, but they were. What's happening now is beteen two foreign companies. I don't think there would have been this outcry if PSA had been successful in their bid.

[mdmc]

71. Racism caused by fear. Ya with us, or ya with da terraist

Bush thought he got to choose who was "with us" and who "was against us". Little did he know that the UAE was close enough to Al-Quida to cause fear in mainstream 'merica. The more you look, the more you see a BFEE.:kick:

[NYC]

90. Most westernized arab country -- State Dept. trashes UAE rights record

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x614753

[PaulaFarrell]

126. China trashes US rights record

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html

I am not saying the UAE is paradise, far from it, but it's also far from the worst place on place. I see we still haven't severed our relations with Uzbekistan, even after the 'boiling alive' incident. Meanwhile Rumsfeld (I think - definitely someone in the admin) is making overtures to Algeria where they make what went on at Abu Ghraib look like light relief. But no, let's get all sanctimonious abut UAE.

[NYC]

129. Sanctimonious?

Are you implying that I approve of what goes on in Uzbekhistan, Abu Ghraib, China, etc. but disapprove of the U.A.E. only?

Because Uzbekhistan is worse tha the U.A.E. doesn't mean the U.A.E. is acceptable. I've heard people say Guantanamo shouldn't be criticized because China is worse. What kind of thinking is that?

[PaulaFarrell]

130. So were you up in arms about the UAE before the port deal?

If so, I apologise.

[NYC]

131. Human rights in general.

[PaulaFarrell]

133. but not the UAE specially? n/t

[dansolo]

136. Arab GOVERNMENT, not just company

You seem to want to spin this as a racial issue against Arabs. The problem is that Dubai is owned and operated by a foreign government. Are you really trying to argue the point that we should have a foreign government running our ports? Because that is essentially what the deal would have meant.

[notadmblnd]

140. Not to mention...

that that forgein government would have advance lists of the comings and goings of all our military ships. No doubt for sale to the highest bidders.

[Carni]

39. They were BUSH FAMILY allies not United States allies

That pretty much makes them an evil doer in my book!

[High Plains]

92. The kind who slap back when slapped.

[hlthe2b]

4. Well, all rightee, then...

Someone send a high level delegation with the key and deed to the White House (just to formalize the arrangement, of course)... :mad:

[goclark]

6. I bet they were able to blackmail the Chimp

Bet he promised them this deal for something real stupid.

He is so dangerous and he brings out the worst in everyone he meets.

[TNOE]

18. This deal was probably payback for 9/11

Bush Co. plans & does 9/11 and their oil buddies agree that Arabs get the blame, we kill a million or so, so what, and they all get rich!! Money is always the bottom line.

Andrea Mitchell was on Tweety warning that if the deal didn't go through - there would be riots in Muslim countries worse than the cartoon riots. I say - so? That's a problem for me why?

You know they're losing when their best arguments are as weak as that. Smells like blackmail to me - Bushlovers gonna be ok with that too?

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. I he's been blackmailed, too

It's extremely complicated geo-politcally, but Bush's "boldness" and "resolve" can't do diddly about this fiasco.

They've got us over a barrel and Bush knows America's finally waking up...he's fucked and so are we.

[TNOE]

40. Close - but not quite

I agree with you to the extent that Bush is fucked - but we're not. I think this will be the last card played - and the truth has been revealed. Now, it's all down hill for THEM from here on out. This just may have been our saving grace.

It must become apparent now - to all but the severely retarded that the enemy to the government is US - not Arabs. And that's why their own party is imploding. Granted, Americans are pretty stupid and lazy as a whole, but this move was almost too blatant & egregious to be ignored.

We're the ones being wiretapped and spied on, we're the ones who get the Patriot Act, we're the ones who are supposed to hand over our freedoms in the name of "security". They think they're going to screw over Americans and give the Arabs the lion share? Ain't going to happen. Looks like their arrogance will be their undoing.

This deal has been a blessing in disguise.

[Norquist Nemesis]

59. I'm not convinced it is down hill for them, though

Did you happen to catch Duncan Hunter on Lou Dobbs last night? He was gloriously proclaiming that "It was the REPUBLICANS that killed this deal." So (according to Hunter's premise), the Democrats were completely irrevelent. Hunter pushed more by saying it's the 'Republicans that have always had National Security' interests for the American people.
:puke:

[TNOE]

64. No, but there was some Repuke Apologist

on CSPAN this morning from Arizona saying how the deal is no big deal - callers weren't buying it. Bush is still done, whether any Repub candidate can salvage their race is still yet to be seen. I have my doubts, because I think finally the curtain has been pulled back. Not that I dismiss your concerns, I wonder myself, but in the end, I've got to believe that even the most devoted loyal repuke is going to be pissed over this. It just flies in the face of everything else they felt this administration stood for or was doing.

The good I see coming from all of this - is the imploding of their own party, long time Repubs are turning on their party, the South Dakata decision is going to get young people off their asses finally to vote and take an interest in their futures. I see the bad, but I can't help but think better will come from it. If not, you're right, we're fucked, but ALL the Repubs I know have really soured on the administration and the party. This was a deal breaker for them.

[marions ghost]

88. I saw that too

and was also struck by the disconnect between the Republican guest on C-Span and the callers. It was like they were from two different planets.

This is HUGH! The koolaid drinkers' eyes have been opened by this ports deal. The veil of illusion has lifted. Many are realizing that they have been duped like every group in history who has ever been double-crossed. They are pissed off.

There is no way the Repugs will get the port deal through without massive repercussions.

[NJCher]

8. how about stopping the support of these tyrants

And letting their own population have a real democracy.

Throw 'em to the wolves!




Cher

[Epiphany4z]

9. OH yes

how nice....what a selling point...do business with us or else...nothign like a little blackmail in your business dealing to seal the deal...:sarcasm:

This just makes the point doesn't it?

[BuyingThyme]

21. They are allies in the war on blackmail.

[fasttense]

10. Just like they plan to run our ports.

We don't like restricting access of illegal aliens, we'll pull our money. We don't like treating workers humanly, we'll block you from using our ports. We don't like your security requirements, we'll bankrupt Boeing or stop financing repuke's campaigns.

This is why you can NOT sell off pieces of your country to a foreign nation.

[Kerrytravelers]

11. It never ceases to astound me just how low this president is and what

he picks as "friends" of the US.

And yet, the freeptards follow his every word. :scared:

[zanne]

13. It sounds like Bush's problem.

Will we have to bail him out of another mess?

[underpants]

15. Sorry I don't buy it-The only way this doesn't go thru the WTO

is if Poppa Bush can talk James Baker into talking the UAE into not pushing it. Other than that the American people are about to find out what the actual role that they and the US government now play in international affairs namely business deals.

[wtmusic]

17. Amazing how similar Junior is to these ME tyrants

and he keeps wanting to bomb them. Self-hate?

[Tin Man]

19. I'm calling bullshit on this story - purely Whitehouse propaganda

I'm calling bullshit... this story has WH fingerprints all over it. WH is trying to scare congress into backing down.

[0007]

28. There may be something to what ya saying!

I don't think this will scare congress though.

I think junior has booked a looser. Then again who knows? In my wildest dreams I never thought he'd be president either! :shrug:

[radio4progressives]

118. I'm with you... this is a phony shell game operation going...

[Canuckistanian]

20. Good! Show them what the real relationship is

Let the American people see just how much control these petro-Arab states have over government policy and financial matters.

After 'all we've done for you guys'. Funny, I thought this was strictly a mutually beneficial trade relationship.

I didn't realize that included power sharing of America as well.

[magellan]

22. Dontcha love unregulated capitalism?

It all comes down to who's got the biggest stick...and Free Trade hands that stick to non-US corportations.

[MrBenchley]

25. Stop press! Osama's buddies don't like America!

"The Emir of Dubai, and the head of the family that owns Dubai Ports is an associate and hunting companion of Osama Bin Laden."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/01030/7961

This just in: Pope said to be Catholic....

[mattclearing]

27. LOL.

All of Congress is going up against the military industrial complex on this one. Fucking brilliant.

I'm rooting for the ambulance.

[blue4barb]

29. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

b*shco has really screwed up again...

[slaveplanet]

30. UAE is not a country

it is more a Conspiracy in country clothing

[NJCher]

35. that is brilliant!

Wish I'd thought of it but it is now in my vernacular forever: a conspiracy in country clothing.




Cher

[PRETZEL]

31. quid pro quo not being paid is more like it,

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Ports_Security_Katrina.html

WASHINGTON -- The United Arab Emirates gave the Bush administration $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina weeks before a state-owned company there sought U.S. approval for its ports deal.

The White House said Thursday the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the relationship between the two governments caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running significant operations at six major U.S. ports.

(snip)

seems just a bit too cozy to me........................

[Roland99]

32. Good. Stop buying our shit. We don't care.

The money is going to fat cat elites anyway. Not like average Americans benefit from our trade with Dubai.


And, go ahead and block our Navy ships. Make it harder on our gov't to wage unnecessary war. You'll be doing us and the world a favor.

[Carni]

41. What the hell do they buy from us btw?

Does this country actually SELL anything anymore?

So what they stop buying crap made in India by American companies that outsource all our jobs--

oooooohhh! I'm scared!

[Roland99]

44. I dunno...what do mega-billionaires buy that would be made in the US?

[Carni]

51. I refreshed my memory

They are heavy investors in the Carlyle group--partnered in logging with Halliburton and have sunk untold sums into scumbag Neil bushits so called education materials business.

Gee, I am just going to cry a river if any of those guys and their investors lose money.

[Roland99]

53. Cry havoc!

[NYC]

95. Boeing airplanes.

There's a current article floating around here somewhere.

[Roland99]

97. How many? And how often?

Can't see that as being something that would affect our economy.

[NYC]

99. 50. That's 12 1/2 per year. See 3rd paragraph here.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

[Roland99]

102. Well, that is a chunk of change after all.

[NYC]

106. Yes, it is. Is Boeing's profit more important

than port security (something we've done nothing about), and the outsourcing of American control of American things?

Apparently, it is.

I didn't know that a U.K. corporation had the lease. I think that was wrong. Now that I know, I think all ports should be controlled by American interests. There are certain things you just can't/shouldn't outsource no matter what profits you can pocket. Why was Maersk transporting our equipment for the Iraq War? Foolish. What would happen if Maersk was busy transporting equipment for Denmark? I guess we would be up the creek.

The problem is that the people making the profits just don't care.

[Roland99]

107. I agree the US needs to control *all* of its ports.

And I'm not going to be surprised if Halliburton or a subsidiary gets a chunk of this port operations deal.

[NYC]

111. That sickens me.

Halliburton has no loyalty to the U.S.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Airliners, as the article says (n/t)

[Carni]

114. Of course! So they can fly them into our buildings

What the hell was I thinking?

[Kansas Wyatt]

33. Bush's Dubai's Royal Family Credit Card dangerously close

To being maxed out, unless America morgages it's ports to them.

[JaneGat]

34. A perfect illustration how elected representatives are compromised

Until our so-called representatives decide to represent us responsibly, we'll have rocket fuel in our lettuce, benzene in our orange juice, poisonous air, and foreign governments running our country.

From the Hill article:

"Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time."

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

[Hubert Flottz]

36. Royal Family????

You mean the Bush KKKlan?

[xiamiam]

37. strong arming..imagine what happens after they get the ports?

* is such a loser...and just by association that makes us losers as well...pitiful...

[Marr]

48. You said it.

[Atman]

38. You gotta ask...why do they want this so much?

Sure, the transaction is worth a lot of money. But it's not as if the UAE is going to go broke if they don't land this deal. It's just a business deal, right? Right? And yet, they can't understand why we're concerned, and maybe back off for a bit while we work out our "problems?" These are not people who are demonstrating themselves to be worthy "partners." They're too hot-headed. And for some reason, apparently desperate to get their mitts on our ports.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. Actually, to be perfectly fair...

they're not being particularly hot-headed nor are they "desperate" to gain control of "our" ports.

Control of container freight shipping facilities is, as you may or may not be aware, part of the UAE takeover of the UK-based P&O shipping company. The concession for facility management and logistics in these US ports was contracted to P&O (which, as one of the world's largest container shipping companies, has the expertise, leverage, and economy of scale to operate a large freight terminal efficiently).

Port security is in the hands of US Customs, the US Coast Guard, and the US Border Patrol, and is NOT part of the freight terminal concession.

And as to hot-headed, it seems to me that the reaction in the US to this whole thing is rather MORE hot-headed, being based as it is on poor understanding of what's actually happening and the cynical exploitation of xenophobia, ignorance and anti-Arab sentiment by politicians and the media under the guise of an empty argument that our national security is somehow "threatened". (Note that neither Germany nor Australia seems to have a problem with DPW operating container freight terminals in their countries.)

[PaulaFarrell]

54. wow, fairness...

not something you see a lot of on this issue

[Atman]

62. You don't threaten a trading partner, demanding to be let in or else.

(edited to correct a possessive tense.)

I'd call that hot-headed. If they cannot understand that Americans have concerns, even if they don't feel they may be valid, they're being hot-headed. Are we? Maybe, maybe not. But we have every right to be, in light of the bogeyman scare-tactics the GOP has employed leading up to this deal. They should back off, simply to demonstrate that they're going to be a good partner/occupier of our ports. Instead, they threaten us with blackmail.

No, I think it is fair to call them hot-headed about this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. Hardly;

as I said, they're only buying the operation rights, as part of their $6.7B buyout of P&O. Their offer was accepted by P&O's stockholders, so from their perspective, the deal was a fait accompli...but now all of a sudden you have hysterical Americans throwing a spanner in the works by making noise about "security concerns" (which apparently weren't as much a concern when a British company was running things, oddly enough), based largely on absurd and xenophobic arguments having to do with "risk of terrorism"...as though there's any percentage in a multinational corporation which happens to be a major player in its field jeapordising its position in such a manner (not a good reflection, I'm sure you'd agree; and would the protests be so vehement were this not an Arab company? I think not). So here they are with billions tied up in this, and suddenly, thanks to this hysteria (and the cynicism of politicians hoping to score points by looking "tough on national security") they stand to lose rather lucrative freight-terminal concessions. Should they be happy?

And the US reaction is NOTHING BUT hot-headed...it's based completelty on emotional reaction with very little resembling logic entering the picture. Of the many hundreds of posts on the subject I've seen here, very few seem to have the vaguest idea of the actual issues, or of why this is MUCH less worrisome than everyone seems to think it is.

[Atman]

75. I'm sorry, I completely disagree

And the US reaction is NOTHING BUT hot-headed...it's based completelty on emotional reaction with very little resembling logic entering the picture.

Very little resembling logic? Bush's own human rights commission gives the UAE terrible marks. The UAE allowed nuke materials to be shipped to our "enemies" through its ports over direct objections from the US. The Bush admin has spent five years conditioning the American people to fear Arabs. What on earth are these people expecting the reaction to be? And once again, I cannot state this emphatically enough. This is not a mere company taking over the management, it is a COUNTRY.

I'd say the US reaction is far more logical than the GOP's desire to force through a deal to benefit a country who is already blackmailing us, a deal with direct links to the pockets of the Treasury Secretary of the United States. Why is it so important to you and the GOP that UAE manage our ports? What's in it for you? Or the United States?

[Spider Jerusalem]

79. Once again...

not much logic.

The US doesn't score very well on human rights, either, come to that; Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, torture...and more to the point, what has this to do with the issue at hand? Nothing.

And I can't see any functional difference between a state-owned comany and a private company. That is not a particularly convincing OR logical argument, especially considering that the primary concern would be logistics (loading and unloading, which is done in the US facilities by American workers despite foreign ownership) and not much else.

And it's not important to me that a UAE-owned company manage container freight facilities at SOME US ports; I don't give a fuck whether they do it, or the French, or Laplanders, or bloody Martians. What I have a problem with is the ridiculous display of ignorance and ugly xenophobia complete with lame post hoc justifications.

[madmunchie]

89. Try to be as objective and intellectual as you want to be

the Americans have every right to reject this deal. The Coast Guard has expressed concerns as well as other agencies. Putting that all aside though the fact still remains that the UAE recognized the Taliban as a legit Government, money was funneled thru them that supported terrorist activities (including 9/11), and 2 hijackers came from there. Putting that all aside, watch TV, we are in major struggles with that region of the world. Putting that aside, the US Government has had the Americans on every frickin color alert for the last 5 years. The alerts are targeted at possible terrorist attacks that just so happen to have involved people from that part of the world most of the time. Last time I checked the Brits weren't threatening Americans with bombing or violence. We have had embassy's blown up, citizens assassinated all be people from the ME. We have been called infidels, and have had much of that region documented to be very angry with us because of our foreign policy as well as a steady diet of bombings and soldiers killed in Iraq. The best that we have received in general from this part of the world is many mixed messages. Sure not all of the people from the ME are evil and out to get Americans, but as Bushco said we have to be right all of the time and catch all of the attempted attacks on our country and our citizens, they only have to be right once.

It is common sense that our port Security should be handled by our Government and not somebody else's. The UAE has had questionable ties in the not too distant past. When it comes to our security, if our Government cannot handle it, than what the hell can our Government handle? With all of the jobs in this country being outsourced. I am sure with some American ingenuity and some of the "displaced" American workers, this can be handled by Americans.

I have heard numerous reports saying that why the UAE won't be providing security for the ports, they will be privy to many of the security issues and potentially dangerous information if it found it's way to the wrong hands.

So now our UAE is "one of our closest allies", when just a few years ago they were supporting our enemies. What is to say that in a few more years the tide may change? I would say a few years is not enough time to prove any loyalty.


There is no hysteria here, it is common sense and to be expected considering what has been happening in our not too distant past.

[Atman]

101. Bravo. Blast post.

You've said it all. I'm actually baffled by the people who DO support this, and see nothing wrong with a foreign government running our ports. It just makes no sense. Event the last response to me was more attack than explanation, calling us doubters essentially "ignorant fools." It has nothing to do with ignorance. Just the opposite, imho.

The UAE may love us today. What happens tomorrow when Bush fucks up the next thing he touches so badly that we're no longer friends with the UAE? Or if the UAE undergoes some sort of political crisis of its own? WHY do we want ANY country -- COUNTRY, not COMPANY, and I don't care that OP sees no distinction, because there is a huge one -- why do we want any country running our ports instead of us running them ourselves? Why the bloody fuck can't we manage our own goddamn ports, especially during a time of "war" with some of the very people we're selling ourselves out to? And WE'RE the ones not being logical?

[TNOE]

65. It still flies in the face of

this administration forcing Americans to relinquish their freedoms in the name of security and then turning around and selling out.

Everything they've gotten away with has been in the name of "national security" and "fear". Either there is a war on terrorism or there isn't. Can't have it both ways. You're spying on me? You're taking away my rights? You're checking my shoes at the airport? AND you're selling our ports to the Arabs?

Logically - it doesn't work.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. .......

Once again...the container freight terminal concessions (NOT the ports themselves, nor port security, which, again, in case you missed it the first time, falls under the purview of US Customs, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard) were owned by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which, following acceptance of a $5.7 billion offer, was bought by Dubai Ports World. Bush didn't sell anything; as I said in my previous post, most people seem to have NO IDEA what this actually involves. All I'm seeing on the issue is rampant ignorance and barely veiled anti-Arabism.

[TNOE]

77. ......

Once again - I DON'T GIVE 2 SHITS - over the Semitics and intricacies of the deal - and most people don't.

The point is - either there is a war on terrorism or there isn't. Either we need to be concerned with National Security or we don't. Get it?

We torture in the name of Security.
We go to war in Afghanistan in the name of Security.
We go to war in Iraq in the name of Security.
We get spied on in and the law is broken the name of Security.
We get the Patriot Act in the name of Security.

So surely if Security is THAT crucial - Americans need to be running America's ports.

They can't do their fucking jobs now -

No one could have foreseen planes flying into buildings? WHAAAATTTTT????? People bought it but turns out they were running that very same exercise the day of 9/11.

No one could have anticipated the levees breaking - WHHATTTT?? Only everybody did.

THIS ADMINISTRATION CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING - EVER!!! Their credibility is ZERO, NADDA NONE. I don't care WHAT they say - the reality is they cannot be trusted with our laws, our money, or our ports.

Comprehende?

[TNOE]

80. Oh & Yeah

I just love your line that now those opposed are being HYSTERICAL and Racist! You've got those Karl Rove talking points down pat.

This administration has done nothing but whip up hysteria after 9/11 - and now they want us just to forget everything they've said the past 5 years? (Just this one time mind you, after the deal is done, it will be back to color coded terror levels and Bin Laden tapes). I never bought it in the first place, but after 5 years of conditioning, its not going to be erased. As much as they would like that to happen.

Frankly, I'm thrilled with this administration's stupidity. Their lies and deceit are coming back to haunt them - and rightfully so.

Tell you what - I'll gladly wear that racist hat if that's what it takes to undo this deal - but if they're going to take away my rights in the name of Security and then sell us all out - they can shove that racism hyperbole right up their collective asses.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. "Karl Rove talking points?"

I have an opinion which disagrees with yours, so you insinuate that I'm a Republican. How nice. I suppose I should try just a little harder to toe the line of approved opinion next time. Thinking for oneself is bad.

May I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself?

[TNOE]

82. Sure, gladly

I'm quite fond of myself anyway. I always know when the argument is won because I'm either called a name or told to go Fuck myself.

Oh come now - don't play coy. You know how when this administration wants to get its point across they have all their apologists on every news show & interview all repeating the exact same phrases. Every watch the Daily Show? They do a beautiful job of portraying it.

I didn't insinuate anything - I said you've got Karl Rove's talking points down. So either A. You buy it, B. you are a Republican, or C. You're just not that bright. Whatever.

And I'll say it again - I want my freaking rights back, I want the Constitution and Bill of Rights back and until that happens, they can shove this deal up their collective asses.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Don't be disingenuous.

Of course you were insinuating something. And if you knew me at all, you'd know that I'm not by any stretch a Republican apologist; rational analysis of the facts in this case, relying largely on UK and European news sources (I tend to eschew mainstream US media as their biases are too generally evident, and distance lends perspective) has led me to the conclusions I've given.

And I can rest peacefully knowing that I'm at least brighter than you; at least I know the difference between "semitics" and "semantics" and don't resort to ad hominem in debate unless attacked first (which is what your snide "Karl Rove" comment was).

[TNOE]

84. Oh see now I'm just embarrassed

NOT - so I fucked up and mispelled a word, its not a test that I'm going to be graded on - those days are long gone thankfully. So I'm over it.

Hey - trust these guys at your peril. How forgiving do you think the Americans are going to be when a dirty bomb is shipped through the ports and not detected and we lose another city to Bush? We've already lost 2 Twin Towers, part of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Can we really afford to lose the East or West Coasts? And don't think they are not dying for another 9/11 - they need it desperately now. Bush approval ratings down below Nixon, his party turning on him, they are struggling to get their next war on, they had planned on being way more in control now with America in basic lock down. Remember Tommy Franks said we were just one terrorist attack away from martial law. I just can't see Americans handing them the bomb to destroy us with. But, that's just me.

You think Bush & Co. aren't in thick as thieves with this group? Oil is their first love, their everything. And with oil comes money and power and prestige. Its all about them and not a thing to do with us - just absolute proof that they don't give 2 shits for any of us regular people.

[Atman]

104. TYPO FLAMER!

"at least I know the difference between "semitics" and "semantics"

Last bastion...

[High Plains]

96. This is a bullshit argument.

how about:

D. The person can think on his own.

[TNOE]

98. How bout

who cares what he thinks? Not me.

I'm sick of all the apologists.

[Atman]

105. BINGO!

Double Bingo.

[Atman]

103. With all due respect...

You may not realize it, but while you may not BE a republican, you ARE in fact sounding very much like one in this thread. Sorry if it pisses you off that people point that out. If you can't take the heat, you know...stay out of the kitchen. Don't come in here defending a republican position unsupported by a vast majority of Americans (remember, WE supposedly run the country through our representatives) and expect a group hug. You don't help anyone's understanding of the issue by hurling ad hominems calling us "ignorant." The support for the position you are advocating is nearly less than that for even George Bush himself...and you dare say WE are the ignorant out of touch ones?

[Spider Jerusalem]

115. I'm not defending anyone's position but my own.

If you bothered to read my other posts (instead of just replying to them) you'll note I mention that I arrived at my position independently, following a review of available information from a multiplicity of news sources. I don't watch television, I don't listen to talk radio. I read, and I form my own opinions.

And I called the position ignorant, which it is..."ignorant" literally means "not knowing", and a good many statements I've seen on this subject are very much ignorant of the basic facts of the issue (see for instance my points re actual security arrangements, fact that only thing at issue was freight terminal concession rights, et cetera). That you choose to construe that as an ad hominem, when it is in fact a perfectly reasonable term to use for a misinformed opinion based on incomplete or poorly understood knowledge (and furthermore not aimed at any particular person but instead at an opinion) indicates that you apparently don't know what ad hominem means.

And an argument based on the popularity of a position is no argument at all...if it were, accordng to recent polls we ought to scrap evolution in our science classrooms in favour of so-called "creation science". Are you familiar with the term "logical fallacy"?

[Atman]

116. I am familiar with "logical fallacy"

Are you familiar with "pomposity?"

I've heard your arguments. I've also done plenty of research of my own, thank you very much. Like you, I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I do know what "ad hominem" means...you just attempted to couch one as a learning experience for me, after all. I do find your continuous spouting of holier-than-thou speeches from the mount to be endlessly boring. We have a difference of opinion. I think you are wrong. I think you are as ignorant of the "facts" as you believe me to be. I believe you are acting just as much on emotion as you think I am, you just think your emotional response is more valid than mine.

I believe you are wrong. And you defend yourself/position by calling me "ignorant," being sure to point out that you only mean it by the dictionary definition and not as an insult. More education bestowed upon us "ignorant" plebes, I guess. Your post if filled with insults.

And finally, my argument was NOT based upon the popularity of a position. (More insults). Hell, I didn't even bring up the popularity of the position until my umpteenth post in this thread. It is ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER, not the basis of my argument.

If you want to make this about word games, semitics (sic), definitions, fine, go for it. I'll just sit in the back of the class and bask in your greatness.

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. ...

I think I should probably advise you that if you're looking for subtext in any of my responses, you're off track. I'm autistic; I tend to be very literal. If I mean to apply something to a person in particular, I'll say so; I don't do generalisations. If I say an opinion is ignorant, that's what I mean, and only that. You may feel free to interpret it differently if you wish, but you'll be mistaken.

I also tend to use words very precisely; I don't say "ignorant" when I mean "stupid". If I meant "stupid", that's what I'd say.

I also tend to interpret things I read in a literal manner; it was YOU who brought up the popularity of your POV as though that were a reason to give it consideration, and now you get pissed off because I respond to it? (And it wasn't an insult; again, I don't do subtext, and if I insult you, you'll know it.)


Without agreed upon definitions, communication is impossible; and you've very clearly been reading things into my comments that form no part of what I actually said.

[Old and In the Way]

124. My understanding is that, as concession owners, they are privvy to

security plans for the port. Maybe with a different administration, I'd be less concerned about the deal for them to have control of 20 US ports.

All we need is one more "event" to turn us into a full blown police state. Seeing that UAE and the House of Bush have mutual socio-economic interests and seeing that the UAE is not too concerned with our concept of Democracy, I'll err on the side of "no sale".

If I'm wrong, all we've done is pissed off the Ruling families in the UAE and James Baker and they'll have to reallocate their petro-dollars (those are our dollars that they are using to buy the port, afterall) into other investments. If we are right, maybe we save one of our ports from a horrible disaster and keep the Republican Syndicate from using an event to declare martial law and permanent dismantling of our civil rights.

[PaulaFarrell]

127. We've done more than piss off the royal family

we've reinforced the opinion of every Arab, moderate or radical, that the US despises ARabs and refuses to do business with them on equal terms. That the US is willing to use them (their air force bases to launch wars, their ports to dock our navy ships) but not willing to treat them as equals. That is a fact.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/10o/Anti-Arab%20Vote%20in%20US%20House%20of%20Representatives%20Arab%20News.htm


"Yesterday's vote in a US House of Representatives committee blocking a Dubai company from running six major US ports was not about stopping foreign companies from running US ports. It was a specifically anti-Arab move. US politicians did not have a problem when British-owned P&O operated the ports. But now that an Arab company, Dubai Ports World, is buying out P&O, it is a different matter. It is glaringly, provocatively anti-Arab.

What is illogical about Congress’ attitude is that Dubai is one of America’s closest friends in the Middle East. Indeed, it is arguably the most pro-Western, pro-American of anywhere in the entire Arab world. American lawmakers even spurned the Dubai company’s promises that a separate all-American subsidiary would run the US operation. Clearly they do not trust any Arab, no matter who they are and where they are from, even if they are the most faithful of allies. The US clearly has different classes of friends. First-class, second-class or maybe even third, fourth and fifth class, who cannot be fully trusted.

Which one Arabs fit we do not quite know, but we know we are in the untrusted section. Congress clearly regards Arabs as untrustworthy — there to fight terrorism, keep the oil flowing, buy American goods and services and generally jump to Washington’s beck and call. Congress in no way regards Arabs as partners and equals. It is neocolonialism and there has to be an Arab response. "

[Sensitivity]

74. Where the hell did you come from: INFORMED, REASONED .. SHOCKING!!!

[FredStembottom]

42. Excellent! Not even the most illiterate conservative

will fail to understand "give us your ports or we hurt you".

Heck, the viewers of "Daytime Dramas" and dialogue-free action movies understand the concept of blackmail maybe even better than the pale, near-sighted policy wonks of DU ;-)

[Skidmore]

46. He sure made America stronger and safer, didn't he?

* and the Republican party have been selling America out over the past 5 years at a record pace. Shove it down their throats. Strong on defense, my tush! Carrying around a big gun doesn't mean that someone can't take it away from you and shoot you with it, now does it? That's what these bully boys don't get.

[WinkyDink]

50. And nary a mango in sight!

No ports for you!

[dogday]

68. See what kind of people we are dealing with

So many hands in so many different pockets....

[Sensitivity]

69. Jingoist, Xenophobes, Bigots UNITE -- LET'S GET THEM SHEIKS

[mdmc]

73. a kick for unity

against Bush! Now even the stars and bars oppose w!

[Atman]

123. Nothing to do with Jingoism or Xenophobia...remember this pic?

So now we'll be in bed with another Arab "leader." Sure, it may be a great deal today. I'm sure that's what Rummy was saying when he posed for this picture.

[Sensitivity]

78. About time they learned what U.S. is all about -- as well as the Chinese

and all the other dopes who are subsidizing the American lifestyle and
proping up the U.S. economy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

91. See what happens when you sell your country?

Now they're threatening to pull their purchases? Then, we can have China pull their purchases when they're pissed. Then, we can have Japan pull their purchases when they're pissed and then, we are SCREWED.

Screw the UAE. SCREW BUSH TOO.

[Skidmore]

93. We won't be screwed. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity

to regain some self-sufficiency clear some of the junk off of the shelves of our stores. Let's turn some retail clerks back in to producers.

[Cleita]

100. This is the reason we shouldn't be doing deals like this.

The fact that they will threaten to do things to you if you don't obey should kill the deal right there. There will always be places to dock our ships. Other countries will step up to the plate for our yankee dollars. Boeing, a Repuke company, should start learning to make money the honest way.

[raccoon]

120. Absolutely, this sounds like something out of THE GODFATHER. nt

[Sensitivity]

108. Is this real news or RW propaganda: "The Hill"??? Sources???

[savemefromdumbya]

109. oh no what will happen to all the arms and drug smuggling now?

Mr Libby?

[smirkymonkey]

110. Yeah, After All That Help They Gave The Bush Adminstration

with orchestrating September 11th, and then we go and stab them in the back like this! How Ungrateful! :sarcasm:

[Generator]

117. We've been warned

Sounds like blackmail. Sounds kinda like what I think really happened before 9/11-Bushinc. wanted to play ball (it's just business! money! pipelines-win! win!) with the Taliban and Osama. So of course they knew about the warnings and of course they did nothing-because it was their fucked up business bullshit that brought it on. Look at Iraq. (Oh my GOD-I can hear Cheney's conversation-"Yeah, so, yeah they attack-we can go into Iraq..we'll find a way to blame it on them hee hee.")

They know nothing about these people, their beliefs, how to work with them. But if you look at history, best not to promise and mess with the honor of them. They never forget.

[Disturbed]

121. "Sounds like blackmail."

It smells like Extortion to me.

[meow2u3]

134. UAE to USA: do business with terrorist sympathizers--OR ELSE!

STP to UAE: Who the hell do you think you are, you who harbor terrorists and support the Taliban?

This woman ain't taking any of your shit!

[DetroitProle]

138. don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

We've run our nation for over 200 years without the help of your backassward country. I'm sure we'll be just fine. Now stop threatening us, don't you have some children to enslave, you dicks?

[katty]

139. yes, all we've done for the Bushes and their cronies.....