Redstate

is about to find out many things about himself that he never knew.It'll probably come as a shock to him that he's a bigoted, xenophobic blowhard, but I hope he won't take it too hard. He should know he's in good company.

P.S. Sensitivity training at Rev. Al's house tommorrow nine o'clock sharp.

disagrees with him.  The largest naval base outside the US in a port managed by DPW without a single terrorist incident.  I am growing tired of this ridiculous debate over a none-issue, but can anyone point to a single terrorist breach in a DPW managed port? Anyone, anyone at all?

Go Rep. Hunter!

felt obligated to lecture us on how everyone lies.

When terrorists blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 Americans, the media felt obligated to lecture us on why Muslims are justified in hating Americans.

Where is the media now?

Don't they have an obligation to explain to the busy working people of America:

1. That not all Arabs are terrorists,
   
   
2. That not all Arab nations would allow for terrorism if given the opportunity,
   
   
3. That the free market economic models are better for security and prosperity than socialistic models,
   
   
4. That it is racist to use the type of insinuations which many legislators of both parties are using.

Maybe this principle isn't one worth sacrificing control of Congress over, but what a dumb issue for Americans to get upset over.

Once the facts come out, how can anyone other than the most ignorant bigot support using the power of the state to keep a company from acquiring another company?

What the "right" course of action over this deal is yet, either.  But I can tell you that I know what the wrong course of action is -- it is to think and act in the way my father and I did for about 5 minutes after we first learned of this deal while driving across the George Washington Bridge in New York just as the story was first breaking.  At the time, we were on our second trip across the bridge that day, and we were noticing that they have installed extraordinary sheathing reinforcement to the bases of all the suspension cables that hold up the bridge, which I can only surmise is a counterterrorist precaution in case anyone gets an idea to bring the GWB down by severing the cables.

In any case, for about 4 minutes and 30 seconds we sat there like a couple of robot dummies listening to the mindless, reflexive declamations against the deal and participating in our own two-man nodding-in-agreement network when both of us, uncannily looked at each other as the car fell silent and said:  "That's wrong.  That's the Stupid Party reaction."

I skew to the objectivist side, meaning I believe in capitalism as the moral and ideal system for mankind. Dealing with State Owned companies is not capitalism nor free market. Dealing with communists is not true free market. (though dealing with private chinese companies might be fine). Free Market in terrorist goods is not Free Market. None of the Arab countries are free. None truly respect the individual rights of human beings.

Screw their free market.

The person who signed me up for the Ayn Rand Institute's e-mail list.

I am not on that list myself.... so no :)

It is a bunch of huey.  But the one thing that has not even been mentioned are the geopolitical aspects of this deal.  I can just hear now from UBL, you see america does hate muslims.  The u.s allows a godless communist nation to run its ports but when people believe in Allah we are not welcome.  What does turning down this deal with the allies that we are gaining or have gained in the middle east.  Alliance, contrary to what the French may think is a two way street.  Finally the argument that "well two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE" is the most ridiculous bull dinky I have ever heard.  With the use of that logic  Fort Knox needs to be moved because two guys in Kentucky once robbed a bank.  President Bush should not live in the washington d.c. you because presidents lincoln and reagan were both shot in that city.

All these arguments are a mask for prejudice and fear of these wierd people who get upset by cartoons.  

I agree with you and I'd also like to say that I think a wholesale rejection of the UAE port deal by reactionaries (on the Republican side) and opportunists (on the Democrat side) will lead to a situation where lots of people in the UAE will start looking harder at their alliance with America and may cause them to come to the conclusion that their interests are better served by looking elsewhere in the world to do business. And where will they look?  Well, I can guess that a lot of ports in Russia aren't very well-managed right now...maybe they'll even offer them a discount after having been shown the door so coldly by reactionaries in the United States?

if not impossible, to stop this deal from going forward.  Statements like those have put Rep. Duncan Hunter in an untenable position.

The British Courts have approved the take-over, and DP World is free to start port operations immediately.  A voluntary 45-day extention is in place regarding the six American ports, and a compromise may be reached to voluntarily isolate DP World's managers from the Dubai government.

Absent a satisfactory compromise with DP World, it seems there are only two possible choices:  (1) Allow the deal to go forward as currently constructed.  (2) Shut down a significant portion of the port operations in the United States, as they too are foreign owned.

I know some out there will applaud Hunter for standing up for his ideals, but this just strikes me as grandstanding.  Like it or not, the deal is going to happen.  There might have been enough votes to override a presidential veto last week, but that was before the facts became clear.  

Everytime someone like Hunter tries to score a few points back home, he hurts the party as a whole.  Someone at the White House or RNC needs to put a leash on him.  Now.

I guess most republican leaders are a bunch of reactionaries. How nice it is to lead a life where everyone is neatly labeled.

Oooh, people in UAE will look harder at their "alliance" with America. Perish the thought. How will US survive that!?

How will America survive such a huge loss of business?

I guess I am just an evil reactionary. No... No real thoughts in my brain. Everyone who opposes this deal is a radical or an opportunist, while everyone who supports it is a pure and rational angel who really knows what is going on.

And good Lord, we really need to cry for our abused friends from UAE.

Perfect example of the badness of the whole issue.

Play nice, guys.

I'm curious how important the Saudis view this deal? We want to be on friendly terms with. If this deal falls thru will they feel differently about us?

The UAE still has a strategical oil supply so we don't want to be on thier bad side

Unfortunately, this is just the last in a series of events that are being used to good advantage by the loyal opposition and media. The content is largely irrelevant at this point. What is being made of it is not.

http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/blood-in-water.html

they have installed extraordinary sheathing reinforcement to the bases of all the suspension cables

According to the Daily News, they contain Kevlar and ceramics, and I am decidedly happier to see them.

Just remember, though, we must content ourselves with lucid prose descriptions, the taking of photographs on the GWB being now frowned upon.

Now feeling confident that U.S. soil is safe from more 9/11s, many conservatives have decided that its is time to withdraw from the Global stage and focus on the Homeland. No need to worry about the consequences of snubbing a few popsqueak Arabs and meddling in nation-building. "Its our money, not theirs, and its time to start spending it here". Receiving this message loud and clear are next November's Congressional candidates of both parties.

that on the most part betray their motiviations.

First, the issue of security is just BS. Fact is the Dubai company already manages 40+ ports worldwide that ship cargo to US ports. If the concern is security why aren't there screams to prevent shipment originating in those ports which is where the perceived threat would originate? There is no outcry so one is left with an unpleasant series of possibilities for those whom security is the issue: are they stupid, are they Arab-bashing for political gain, or are they genuine bigots (I won't say xenophobes because there is no concern about the port facilities operated by the ChiComs or Venezuelans).

So putting aside the security smokescreen we have a couple of other possibilities.

We have those who believe all US ports should be run by US companies or the US government. Fine. At least respectable. But why is this an issue only now? Again we are left with gratuitous Arab-bashing as a means of making their point because, again, there were no past objections.

We have those who say they don't object to foreign companies owning ports, only foreign companies that are quasi-government entities running ports. We again return to Venezuela and the ChiComs. Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela's government owned oil company. Communist China is communist and that should be hint enough that the companies running US ports are, in fact, government entitites.

If we don't need/want free trade with nations that are not liberal western democracies then I suppose you are also against trade with China and most of the rest of the world.

So let me know what I'm not seeing here, because the only thing that I can see that makes Dubai unique in any of these areas is that they are Arab.

But I believe that I've already described my own personal motivations and reasons multiple times.

I am in favor of using our economic power as a weapon against countries lacking basic freedoms.

China, while technically communist, has long allowed private enterprise in their country. That is why I am abivalent about trading with them. On the face of it, they are a fascist dictatorship without basic human rights, but they've discovered what makes human being productive - capitalism - fair and unforced trading. I believe that they cannot sustain their social fascism as their people discover more and more freedoms through the global marketplace.

Venezuela is moving backwards. There is a prime example of where we can strike with our economic power. They need our money more than we need their oil. Which is why for all their bluster, they would not boycott us. If we boycott them, along with agressive support for non-communist opposition groups we can change Venezuela.

I am not impractical enough to say that we should stop all trade with the tyrannies around the world but we should use the little trade we do with them for their betterment which will in the long run improve our own bottom line. That means only trading with them for the necessities we need from them - in the case of UAE - Oil.

Couldn't say it better.

I'm with you in principle, though if one wants to make the case that the ChiComs are better on human rights than Dubai, IMHO, one has a helluva Everest to climb.

So we come back to the issue. Why isn't the Dubai instance creating a demand that we also abrogate contracts with government owned companies that belong to countries that pose a much greater danger to us than al-Qaeda did or does?

If I heard Hunter say that he was going to pull the plug on all these contracts I'd be with him in principle but still opposed in practice. I can only ask again, why Dubai and not the others?

A decent motive is hard to divine here.

are part-and-parcel of the reason why I cannot think on this issue too long without having my head explode as a result.

What does Duncan Hunter know that, for example, the 4-star Generals who are the Chiefs of the military branches his congressional committee oversees (and who apparently signed-off on the deal) do not?

Why is Hunter (and Frist, and Hastert, and ...) singling out the UAE and not coming down hard on the Malaysians (who are up to their armpits in Radical Ismalists) and the ChiComs?  Hard to come-up with a pure motive for that one, frankly.

I mean, we expect this sort of blatant hypocrisy from the Democrats (Up-Chuck, The Wicked Witch of Westchester, etc.).  That's just politics.  But what's the deal with the GOP on this?

The only thing this sorry affair tells me is that the Administration has lost whatever unsure hold it had of its congressional "majority" and all of them are likely to suffer for it going forward.

Got to go re-apply the duct-tape.  Out.

Their opposition to the ports deal is Republicans' face-saving way of saying that: "..Bush has lost it, and it is now time to bring the troops home to protect us from natural disasters and the Mexican border invasion." Subject to voter wrath in next November's Congressional election, they are merely representing the sentiment of their constituents. They have declared "Ended", Bush's War Against Terrorism.  It is again time for Americans to rely upon defensive shelters, trenches and bunkers instead of meddling in foreign affairs.

We did so much business with other government owned companies. Ignorance is obviously not an excuse but I would prefer we reevaluate all such contracts and ask ourselves if it might be in our best interest to go for business elsewhere.

For the politicians it is a lot clearer. 9/11 - arab terrorists - UAE - past support of terrorists - arabs - US ports - what will the average Joe Shmoe think?! Draw the obvious (and correct) conclusion.

Being against this insane deal with Dubai does not make you an isolationist.  The people supporting this deal can't make a legitimate arguement so they resort to mislabeling the issue and throwing out insults.  People supporting this deal are the ones coming off as ignorant.

What is insane about the deal that makes it different from the ChiComs and Venezuelan governments managing about 30 US ports?

I also think ignorance is a huge part of the equation. You asked "But why is this an issue only now?" and i would say that maybe it took this issue to bring our past policy to light. I had a bit of a quarrel on another post here where I questioned the involvement of a government run entity. the response was "why am I OK with communists running ports". Well, I'm not, really. I just never knew about that.

I am just one person who has a job, family and life. It is impossible to know everything about everything, and this is one thing I think may have surprised many people.

I would also say that I merely question the policy of having a government run company in charge of a vital transportation lifeline and a direct gate to this country, I am not sure if I am against it.

The thing is, gut level, it just seems uncomfortable.

why is he not complaining about the ports and air bases we use in UAE? Or the prior sale of high end F-16s?  Clearly the US, at least the military, has enough trust in the UAE to put many of its own at risk.  To say as he did that "Dubai cannot be trusted" and ignore these other 'small' details is pure grand standing.  Unfortunately, all politics seem to have devolved into grandstanding with few if any politicians exempt.

Why don't we let Lybia run the ports? Hey, they've come a long way since Reagan bombed them. They deserve it!

Or how about Hamas? They have the same stance on Israel as the UAE. There were no Hamas members among the 9/11 hijackers. They have no history of attacking the US yet, which means they have a better record than the UAE. And let's face it, they could use the money. What better way to bring Hamas into the international community. Carter would approve, just like he approved this deal.

I have not decided on this issue yet, I am leaning against the UAE control of the ports. But when fellow conservatives, who don't know a damn thing about me, insist I am racist, xenophobic, arabophobic, or whatever when all I want is more information and to better understand how much access UAE citizens would have to the ports, etc., it drives me away from their position. I know I am no racist, etc., I may have a healthy skepticism of Arab/Muslim countries, but who wouldn't after seeing all the Muslims dancing in the street on 9/11? I bet if you would have taken a poll that day, 80+ percent of all Muslims would have been approving of Al Qaeda's actions that day.

To those who approve of this deal I ask, why are you so ready to jump in bed with the terrorists? Why are you so quick to let a Muslim country have access to a US point of entry? Did you forget 9/11? Have you lost your resolve? Are you ready to surrender for the sake of money? Is money and business more important to you than your children's security?

Are you offended yet? Welcome to the club. Don't call me a bigot because I am cautious, although you make Rev Al proud with your skillful use of the race card. You don't know me, and it is less of a stretch to say those who are for the deal are terrorist sympathisers than it is to call those of us on the fence or against the deal bigots.

Liberals pull out the race card when they lost the argument. I imagine many here are against affirmative action, is it because you are a bigot? Kind of insulting, eh? This port deal is no different for those of us on the fence or against it. If those of you who are for this deal feel you have the facts on your side, don't be throwing around the race or phobia card, because whether you are right about the issue or not, I don't want to be on your side.

Anyone who is for this deal hates Jews. Anti-Semites!

let's hear a logical argument against it.

Security? Over 40 ports managed by this company already ship stuff here. Want to shut them off, too, and if not why?

US stevedore will still work the ports. US Customs and Coast Guard will still provide security.

Hugo Chavez manages 11 US ports, as Nick Danger demonstrated the Chicoms manage about 20.

Links to terrorists? Well, let's shut down the Germans, too. The Hamburg cell provided the 9-11 leadership. The Brits? How about Richard Reid?

So I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why this deal matters in view of who currently manages our ports and as no one is complaining about the other management one is left with the fact that they are an Arab country.

At least according to the Washington Times.

So I really don't think this is going to go anywhere. We have signed too many multi-lateral economic treaties for that kind of legislation not to be ruled illegal.

This is also the sort of problem I was thinking about when I posted earlier that the important principle Bush might be defending is Free Trade.

But even if it were ruled illegal, the reprecussions are already starting. Hastert and Frist need to call some meetings and knock some heads. They need to let it be known that legitimate concerns about security issues can and do need to be addressed, but that representatives and senators need to be calm and reasoned in their approaches instead of leading with impulsive gut reactions. Even if they aren't initially intended as bigotry or demagoguery, that's a likely result after it passes through the echo chamber.

Whatever security updates/upgrades/proceedures need to be improved ought to be improved, but the improvements need to be universal. We've had US citizens charged (convicted?) with being members of terrorist organizations, so US companies are no more immune than foreign ones would be.

The first posting on this topic under a different thread had some very reasonable arguments both for and against it. But this particular thread was started by a bomb tosser and hasn't recovered yet.

The summation of the argument for the port is sort of like this:

1. The port is not being sold as was orginally reported. It is the right to run certain operations at a limited number of terminals at each port. These operations explicitly exclude security.
   
   
2. No American companies bid on the P&O's offer to sell their operations.
   
   
3. All of the people who actually handle the cargo in our ports will continue to be the same. Essentially the only things that change are the names on the paychecks and where the profits from the operation go.
   
   
4. A key principle of our government is free trade: if there is no overriding security concern, we should promote free trade. After review, the Coast Guard determined that Dubai did not constitute such an overriding threat.

Therefore the deal should go through.

Objections have been made that the UAE was in cahoots with terrorists and still is. This is partly true but also partly false. Yes, they were. And then they changed their policies after 9/11 and have subsequently become our biggest supporters in the Arab world. They provide key military bases for our operations (something even Turkey was unwilling to do during the initial Iraqi invasion, and which may have been part of why so many of Saddam's associates got away). They have vigorously sought, captured, and turned over or prosecuted terrorist suspects. No, they aren't perfect. They still support Palestinian terrorist groups and an emargo against Isreal. But not to recognize the huge risks they are takin on our behalf, and treating them as a nation with legitimacy is to make a mockery of the principles of our nation.

Some of the 911 hijackers lived in Florida and funneled Al Qaeda money though Florida's banking system. I suppose we should stop doing business with and oust Florida from the union as well?

I don't think people who oppose this deal are racist. I think it comes down to this:

1.Political grandstanding

2.Emotional outcry without proper education or information

3.Wrapping legitimate security fears around the wrong issue and letting emotion cloud their judgment

Two of the most important terrorist training camps prior to 9/11 were flight schools in Minnesota and Florida.

Mohammed Atta got in shape to be a good looking corpse at an Atlanta sports club. maybe Washington shouldn't be doing bidness with Georgia, as well as other Southern States thru which he travelled on the way to infamy.

UAE has more than China.  And Brazil and India

Glassman explains how the deal is part and parcel of globalism, which benefits the US:

The United States benefits mightily from a globalized world. Our ties through trade, in fact, have made us more safe as our trading partners become more prosperous, open and democratic. But our politicians and pundits should know that we can't pick and choose. If we decide to deny firms from developing nations -- Arab, Asian or otherwise -- from investing in the United States, those firms will go elsewhere. And we will pay the price -- in higher interest rates, higher inflation, lower stock prices, less participation in a world growing more and more exuberant, creative and exciting.

We've got dibs on seceding. You guys already had your turn!

my revised seccession plan in the new civil war more likely to be successful. My original plan was to force blue states to seceed and assume territory status and then require them to accept certain new constitutional amendments to reverse culture war blows landed by the Supreme Court, in order to be re-admitted. Just as the CSA states were required to ratify the 13-15th amendments.

Where can I get a carpet bag? And are you receptive to assuming scalawag status? If so, we will meet in Buffalo to plot a humane reconstruction, albeit with tariffs north of West Virginia! If not, catch Amtrak to Covington , KY!

...would run some of those trains underground, we'd be getting somewhere. Can you just imagine the realignments in trade relationships if NYC seceded, though? Instead of everyone going to work in chauffeured Lincolns, we'd all have to drive our own Renaults. Yeccch.

After all, those of against the deal or who are not sure are either closet racists, unimformed or like to preach from a soap box.

I am none of the above.

But I have to be one of the above because I am not sure and leaning against the deal.

Therefore, you who are for this deal are no friend of Israel.

You have made your alliances clear. You may want to talk to Byrd, see if he can still hook you up in the Klan.

By the way, I must have offended some of you, huh?

Keep on talking down to seventy percent of America who is not comfortable with this. Just like liberals and gay-marriage, the vast majority of America who are against are either closet bigots, uninformed or are just grandstanding.

Maybe this deal won't make us any less secure, I don't know, but talking down and accusing me of unenlightenment and bigotry won't help your cause.

let's hear a logical argument against it.

Their policy towards Israel is basically the same as Iran's or Hamas. Should we reward that kind of behavior and mindset? Do we reward companies in America that display bigotry?

I have said before, I did not know foreign companies controlled our ports, and I think it should be gradually done away with.

You all must hate Israel.

that Israel's main shipping company is in favor of the deal make any difference, or are they just self-hating kapos?

Why is it that just now everyone has become concerned about foreign ownership and they weren't concerned about the ChiComs owning US port facilities at the same time the ChiComs held our P-3 crew?

You weren't supposed to bring that up, it spoils the whole argument.

Why is it that just now everyone has become concerned about foreign ownership and they weren't concerned about the ChiComs owning US port facilities at the same time the ChiComs held our P-3 crew?

I guess you have selective reading problem. Read the sentence I wrote.

the Islamophobe argument.

Are those flight schools in the US where the 9/11 terrorists acquired their hatred for the US and where they came up with their plan of attack?

what it says is that you weren't concerned about the subject until Dubai became involved. What do you want me to take away from that?

You rant really isn't helping your case here.

Read the last sentence I wrote.

Read it again. I didn't know foreign countries controlled our ports.

How in the hell would I be concerned about a situation I didn't know about. I assumed my gov't would have corrected that problem after 9/11.

You didn't bother with it before, and here we are going on 5 years after 9-11, but now it is important.

Look, I'm dropping this here because I've generally valued your posts. What you do is on you.

or in homeland security. That is what gov't officials are supposed to do (make these things public).

Have you researched every single aspect of homeland security? Do you think there are security problems in this country? If so, why aren't you out there bringing light to these issues.

If not, I have to assume you know every aspect of homeland security down to the most minute detail, and that you are comfortable with all of it.

That "you should have known about it" argument won't fly.

I wonder what serious arabs are thinking about this whole Dubai port deal.  I mean, the message is loud and clear....Arabs stay away because WE ARENT SAYING YALL ARE TERRORIST, but we cant take any chances.  What if the people of the Arab world would take the same approach towards American business and entities? Our economy'll crumble in the blink of an eye.  This is dangerous and not for the reasons the arabphobics are thinking

...but I missed the joke.

I'm curious how important the Saudis view this deal?

This is one of the problems.  We're not talking about Saudi Arabia, but the United Arab Emirates.  I've heard a few times people on radio (at least one Congressman) refer to Saudi Arabia instead of the UAE as if they were interchangable.  Perhaps they are, but I've never seen any reason to think so.  This is an easy issue to exploit since most Americans conflate the two and Democrats are long experienced at this kind of crap and more than happy to encourage it if it hurts Bush.  I'm sure this is just a mistake on your part, but it's an example of how easy it is to make.

I'm Batman. And You're RedPatriot. Kerpow.