Stop the Arab Bashing and Look at the Politics of the Port Deal

[JCMach1]

for a minute any way...

Just stop with the xenophobia and demagoguery and look at what is important...


1. Our ports have had little done to be better protected since 9/11 and guess who's in charge now... that's right Sec. Chertoff the man who brought you the Katrina debacle.

2. The UAE has little at stake if this deal goes through, or not.

3. So, why does Bush care? It's about Iraq and the oil. He needs the UAE much more than they need him. He needs the UAE as a logistical base of operations against Iraq and Iran. Additionally, he wants to keep the oil flowing. There are many regional partners (such as India and perhaps China) who would gladly step into any void left by a rift with the U.S.

4. Bush and the Federal Government will NEVER secure our ports because of the perceived costs in time and money (that's where political demagoguery kicks in). If the deal goes though, or if it doesn't no politician is going to follow-up on this. They will never approve what it would take to truly secure America's ports (even if is a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq).

So, hey America it's a lose/lose situation. Repugs will never approve the funding to secure our ports. If DP World manages the ports, security remains relatively the same (status-quo... i.e. not very safe).

Don't let the politicos hoodwink you into thinking they have done something should they block this deal! They are merely taking attention away from the real problem.

[emulatorloo]

1. I call you on the alleged "Arab Bashing" on DU

I just don't see it.

And I think Bush needs this deal more for the trade agreement (his corporate base) -- that's at least 50% of why he is so adamant. The corporations want it.

For Bush it is ALWAYS money over all.

As to UAE:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11511129/

<snip>

The United Arab Emirates is to launch an intensive lobbying campaign in response to criticism of the Dubai Ports deal, amid fears the backlash could undermine discussions about a free trade agreement.

<snip>

[JCMach1]

3. Then why the different response in Britain?

It has everything to do with how this issue is being framed and the reason why xenophobes on the right and the left are coming out of the woodworks.

But yes, let's look at the politics... Bush's corporate base profoundly believes in globalization, so there support should come as no suprise.

[nonconformist]

23. Because most people didn't know about Britain.

I'm not cool with that either.

But Dubai Ports World is owned and operated by the government of the UAE. There's a difference.

[melody]

27. Precisely

Still, they have a history of cultural trade with UAE that we don't have.

[JCMach1]

37. wrong... not the UAE Government

It is partially owned by Dubai Municipality which is a city in the UAE.

That is not the same thing and part of what is wrong about how this story has been framed.

[JuniperLea]

68. And Moscow is a city in Russia...

And Baghdad is a city in Iraq and New York is a city in the US. What's your point? Should we let a Baghdad based company slip in too just because they aren't part of Iraq, just a city in Iraq?

I use Iraq here because, thanks to our Shrubbery in Chief, they hate us to the extreme now.

[berni_mccoy]

71. Doesn't the UAE Govern Dubai?

And does not the Dubai "Municipality" abide by the laws of the UAE?

Because that's how it works here. If not, then what's the purpose of the UAE?

[melody]

95. In all primate societies, there's a direct relationship

... between government and commerce.

There is in the US, there is in the UAE and its associated interests.

This reminds me so very much of the attack dog, turn-the-argument-to-attack-the-opposition-nonsensically-with-its-own-arguments attitude of the far-right.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[JCMach1]

45. This issue is being framed in a racist manner

but I think it is time to get beyond that or we will end up with the lose/lose scenario I describe.

[sendero]

58. Nonsense..

... utter nonsense.

George Bush has whipped up this "anti Arab" hysteria to justify his sick war, and now the entire administration is shocked, shocked I tell you, that anyone would distrust the UAE.

You know what, I could care fucking less whether the fear is justified or not, personally I think it is, but this is politics pure and simple and the Dems should shove this issue where the moon does not shine. (on edit: meaning, up the Republicans' ass, in case my point was not clear).

[JuniperLea]

69. If being against people who aid and abet terrorists is racist in your eyes

I guess I'm a racist then... but try telling that to my multi-cultural neighbors who know damn well otherwise.

[melody]

82. It may be in some respects, but not in all. In fact, not in most

For me, it's a very basic, sound, structural reason. I wouldn't personally want any international hand in the running of our ports, simply because it is far less likely to invite disaster to make certain the person who will be impacted by a failure lives close by.

[Der Blaue Engel]

100. Then maybe stop bringing it up?

Just a thought.

:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

72. Everytime I see charges of "Islamophobia" I think how hypocritical...

what about the female-ophobia, homophobia, and Judeophobia in the UAE?

[Hatalles]

115. Me too.

But that isn't enough to dismiss charges of Islamophobia. Not all Muslims are sexist, homophobes, or anti-semites.

[xchrom]

2. which is the ports aren't safe no matter what.

and those jobs could be in american hands.

i don't care if these ports are in yabba dabba doo -- the issue isn't about arabs -- it's about us -- or u.s.

[JCMach1]

5. My point was pull away how this issue has been framed

so far and look at the politics.

So far, it has been framed as an Arab issue.

[emulatorloo]

17. Your "frame" ellides the questionable history of UAE government w Arabs

and DU'ers are more sophisticated than that ---

[JCMach1]

28. It is important to note here that the UAE Government is a work in progress

It has only been an independent country since 1974. It was largely a tribal run culture at that time (population less than one million).

It's first President and ruler Sheikh Zayed invested heavily in the development of the country with oil revenues resulting in one of the fastest growing coutries and economies in the world.

Sheikh Zayed died last year. His son Sheikh Khalifa was elected President by the ruling council.

Democratic reforms have begun in earnest since then.

With a population of 4-5 million, the UAE is made up of 80% expats.


The country has become one of the first true multi-cultural countries on the planet. As it has begun to mature, Democracy has already begun and will continue to push forward.


Even 2 years ago is an eternity in UAE time. Change is an absolute factor here.

[emulatorloo]

32. Understood -- EOM

[mondo joe]

96. A work in progress? All the more reason to not take this gamble.

Thank you!

[MsMagnificent]

120. Let them change away!

Good for them!
But as long as they're trafficking nuclear components to Iran and as long as their ruling royals are still cozy and vactioning with OBL, then they can just stay away from our fucking ports --whatever race, color, creed or COUNTRY (operative word here!) they may be!

There are lots of fine Arabs and Muslims -- but if you party with Osama, you don't belong in the good graces of the US!

And, as far as I have seen, it is the Republicans who are framing this in a racist overtone -- not the Democrats who are concerned with SECURITY NOT RACE. So why are you aping their ridiculous talking points and attributing it to US?

[jim3775]

4. Can you provide examples of arab bashing?

Pointing out UAE's child slave trade is not arab-bashing, its true.

[JCMach1]

8. Profoundly untrue... the government has taken extraordinary measures

to stop and remedy bringing child jockeys into the UAE.

Each of the boys that was repatriated was given a trust fund to help him and his family.

A prime example from DU was a thread about the UAE royal family yesterday which was covered in pictures of Bush and the Saudi royals.

Need I go on... WE can debate the merits, but let's loose the framing and look at the politics for a bit.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Bull. And please learn how to spell the word "lose".

[nonconformist]

25. Wait... "profoundly untrue"?

You claim that the child slavery stories are "profoundly untrue" and then go on to say that the UAE is trying to stop it.

That doesn't make the story "profoundly untrue" - it means it DID happen.

[JCMach1]

34. these were posted as ongoing events without context

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. "Arab-bashing"?? Sorry, but you're way off base on this one.

[JCMach1]

33. Am I, then why did you respond to that instead of the OP

content?

[JuniperLea]

70. Maybe it took that long reading your rubbish

before he/she could take it no more and feel compelled to respond!


Really, you are way off base here. You are trying to make racists out of very good, liberal, live and let live people.

[Earth_First]

7. Xenophobia?

I think you've pegged the wrong individuals. I have yet to see any xenophobia against individuals of Arab descent here at Democratic Underground. The 'racist' outcry to the UAE port security deal that I have heard is from Beck, Hannity, Savage, et. al. You know, the usual suspects.

[JCMach1]

10. Wasn't just DU I was referring too...

However, DU has also framed the issue in those terms.

[emulatorloo]

11. When Bush and his Flying Monkeys play the race card, we are right to be

skeptical.

[JCMach1]

14. Of course, that was the anti-frame for what was going on

Let's get beyond that and examine the politics...

[Karenina]

158. Not finding many takers, eh?

Man-o-man...

[Hatalles]

15. Islamophobia is being used by some on the left.

Knowingly or inadvertently, I can't even tell anymore.

It's being used as a lever to jolt Bush's base and potentially woo some of them over into the Democratic camp. That's why some are so giddy over this -- it hurts Bush, yes... but it also perpetuates the ugly xenophobic atmosphere that is prevalent in this country.

[stepnw1f]

75. Point Them Out Then

I'll be waiting right here, and if you don't provide proof, I will accuse you of lying.

[Hatalles]

112. What is "them"?

Please explain.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Hatalles]

131. No, really. Explain yourself instead of calling me "stupid."

Islamophobia exists in the RW (and to some lesser extent, in the LW) -- I don't believe you deny this. My argument is that all the focus on Arabs is being inadvertently (or even knowingly by some, perhaps -- this is only a personal sentiment) to swing Bush voters. I don't know what you want me to point out to you.

[stepnw1f]

162. Islamophobia is being used by some on the left.

Point Out Those on the Left using "Islamophobia".

[Hatalles]

166. Re

As I explained earlier, that if it may be done knowingly is a personal sentiment. However, I do believe xenophobia is certainly inadvertently being used to swing Bush voters into the Democratic camp. This is not something that can be easily pointed out. Surely, you understand there exists racists in the RW -- surely you understand that all this focus on an Arab country (and no focus on other foreign entitites operating our ports) has the potential to swing voters from their side to our side simply because of xenophobia. I find this problematic.

I've started another thread on this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x511658

[stepnw1f]

167. Well.. You Can't Point it Out

I'm done with you. Lot's of trouble for nothing at all...

[Hatalles]

170. So be it... but you're not listenting to what I'm saying at all.

[bettyellen]

9. link to the arab bashing please?

cause i just don't see it.
not that you have an interest yourself in pulling the race card.

[JCMach1]

12. Let's see... Let's link every social problem in the UAE to the ports

controversy for starters and then conflate said issue to: we certainly shouldn't let such people run our ports.

[Coexist]

44. please provide all these links

to back yourself up

[JCMach1]

46. Crikey, I would be up all night...

the examples are to numerous. Just search GD and use the term UAE, or port and you will find them by the dozens.

[Coexist]

49. if you want to be taken seriously, then DO it

[JCMach1]

54. here is a typical one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x496752

[bettyellen]

67. i fail to see how this has to do with being "arab"......

people are examining what goes on in an individual nation. should something be overlooked, if so, why?
why is it abot race to you?
not seeing it.
90% about this is about security, our lack of it. people are exploring what goes on in the country.
if it turns up stuff you don't like, refute it or own up.... but please don't pull the race card. that's BS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. "toiletbowl countries"

Countries like the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia (oh especially this piece of CRAP country, scumbags), Yemen, Pakistan, etc., are where the REAL heros of the USA SHOULD BE, and NOT Iraq. Sorry if I sound militant here, but why didn't we make tolietbowl countries like them into parking lots on Sept. 12th, 2001?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x405756

[KoKo]

13. Why do you use the Bush Meme of "Racist Americans against Arabs" in

your post?

How could you...:shrug:

[JCMach1]

16. Because that is how most of the opponents of the Port Deal

have framed their arguments...

Notice I said MOST.

[emulatorloo]

20. I don't trust the govt of UAE - you and Bush want to equate the govt with

Arab people and claim they are the same. Forget it. . .the good stuff in your OP is getting lost because of this false equivalency.

[JCMach1]

30. No, it's not false...

in your own answer you are playing the race card.

You say the UAE GOVERNMENT.

Just a second... A private company is buying this, part of which is owned by the city of Dubai (Dubai Municipality).

The two are absolutely different things yet you conflate them because that is how the story has been framed for you.

[emulatorloo]

all reporting I have seen says DPW is owned/operated by govt of UAE

Just one example:

<snip>

P & O was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a business owned and operated by the government of United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration considers the U.A.E. an ally in the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission found that some of the money for the terror attacks went through banks located in the Arab Emirates and two of the hijackers were, for what it‘s worth, from the U.A.E.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11503418/

[JCMach1]

50. Even reporters get confused... the stake in the company

belongs to Dubai (the equivalent of a U.S. state)... an Emirate here.

The national government is something entirely different.

[acmavm]

24. You're back again with your 'racist' rant? How many times do you have

to be told it's the fact that a FOREIGN government has no business running out ports. And how many times does this government's ties to questionable activities have to be pointed out to you. And how many times are you going to come back with the same old whine?

And I don't give a damn what the British do. It's like my Mom used to say "if the other kids in the neighborhood were playing in the middle of the street during rush hour traffic, do you think that means you should do it too"?

You can call us racists all you like. But it's not racism. And it's not bigotry against Muslims. It some common sense preventative self defense (for once). Your guilt card isn't worth anything in this game.

[JCMach1]

31. so why don't you talk about something else besides the fact it is

they uae...

That was my invitation in the OP.

[acmavm]

42. Simply put, we do not have to defend the desire of the American people

to have sole control over the entrances and exits of our country. We do not have to defend ourselves against ridiculouse accusations of bigotry and racism because we want this control. Why don't you explain to me why I am wrong for wanting this and the UAE is more entitled to control our ports than Americans? Why do you seem to feel we 'owe' it to them to go through with this deal?

Glad to hear they're on the road to real democracy. It will be a first for a Middle Eastern country if the succeed. But they have a bad track record, they have shaky ties to the wrong people, and the company is controlled by the government. I do not, and I never will, believe that a foreign government should have control of such sensitive areas such as our ports.

And don't give me the 'Americans will still control security' speil. Because it is oh so much easier to do damage if the facilities are under foreign ownership.

[JCMach1]

56. I don't think it is any easier... largely because I think it is damn

easy now...

and without a huge investment by the government, that is not going to change.

[mondo joe]

89. The UAE is not a race, dude. This refers to a government.

Not a race. A government.

[Hatalles]

19. Bush was only able to use that meme because...

... that is how some on the left sold it to the general public. **BUSH IS HANDING OVER OUR PORTS TO ARABS!!!**

[emulatorloo]

22. Who on the left did this? Thanks in advance EOM

[Hatalles]

29. From the onsent of the controversy...

The focus was on "Arabs" controlling our ports. That is why this story garnered so much traction. We need to demand that our ports should be in our OWN hands... that no other foreign entity should be in control of them. Singling out the Arabs and inadvertently (?) using the kind of xenophobia that is already prevalent in our country to jolt Bush's base is wrong. The focus must be broader -- we shouldn't sink to the same lows as the RW.

[JCMach1]

38. exactly, that's why we should discuss the politics for awhile

[KoKo]

81. I'm shocked that JCMach1 ran in Florida...as a Candidate NOW is

a Supporter of UAE's. No matter how GREAT Dubai is for JCMach1's Family after living in Florida...it seems to me diengenuous...that he would be out here SHILLING FOR BUSH ...when he was SO UPSET ABOUT GORE/FLORIDA.

But...who knows. I've thought about moving to Argentina for a New Lifestyle and maybe I'd come here on DU touting the "Best and Brightest" in the Argentian Govt. if "I" lived there.

I can't quite give him a pass...thinking he's "smarter" than those he "left behind" and maybe he now works for Rove....Maybe "I Would, too?" :shrug:

[clyrc]

146. Shilling for Bush?

. JC worked himself into the hospital with exhaustion and dehydration while he was running for office. He worked for other Democrats as much as for himself, overtime, way beyond any call of duty. It makes me beyond sick that just because he is working against mindless bigotry he's suddenly on Bush's side. HE and I both think that the US should operate its own ports. He's said that again and again. But you would have to be blind not to see the prejudice against both Islam and Arabs on the part of some DUers lately. JC is a teacher and of course he is going to try to counteract that. I wouldn't respect him as much if he didn't.

[JCMach1]

147. Shilling for Bush? hardly... you obviously didn't read my OP

You also might look at your own company on this issue: Hannity, Scarborough, and any number of horrific Repugs on the Hill.

[JCMach1]

18. Good Grief... you don't want to engage the politics of the issue?

or, is that just not sexy enough...

[Jim Warren]

35. The United Arab Emirates is to launch an intensive lobbying campaign

KA-CHING, bets on there will soon be a few key congress-people looking for hunting land in Montana, bungalows on the Vineyard, etc., etc.

[QC]

93. Their one-man lobbying campaign at DU has been going on for days now.

n/t

[mondo joe]

119. One of their lobbyists today argued with himsellf but forgot to change

screen names to make it look like two different posters. That's what it looked like to me.

[QC]

140. Yeah, that was an interesting moment, wasn't it? n/t

[froshty1960]

36. Point is lost with Arab-bashing comment

Your point in this message is good, but it would have been better if you just made it without mentioning xenophobia or Arab-bashing.

The fact of the matter is not only that our ports are not safe, but that the Republicans actually wrote and passed a budget that can make them less safe. After 9/11, a trust fund was set up so that ports could apply for grants that would allow them to implement systems and design to make shipping more secure.

But, in one of the last few budgets that was passed (either 2004 or 2005), even though they increased the money in that fund, they opened the application for those funds to any company or entity in the transportation industry, including trucking companies, logistics companies, railroads, airlines, airports, you name it. They got away with it by touting the increase in funding without mentioning that they had increased the size of the pie a little bit but then offered it to the starving masses instead of a small dinner party.

Whether Dubai World takes over P&O operations or not, the fact remains that the Bush administration is not in the slightest bit interested in securing our ports or infrastructure, unless of course, there were obscenely huge amounts of money to be made from it.

[JCMach1]

40. That's exactly the point... people cannot see beyond that frame

fer Christ sake...

[FormerRepublican]

39. I have a question.

Do you live in the United States or overseas?

[JCMach1]

43. I am an American living and working in the UAE...

DU knows my resume, I have been a member since 2001.

[FormerRepublican]

47. If you're an American, why do you think concern for national security...

...after 9/11 is Arab bashing?

[JCMach1]

52. The argument is being framed in a racist manner, yes

[FormerRepublican]

57. Be specific and cite examples.

As I see it, the response by the US public is based on the questionable past acts by the UAE with regards to terrorism. After 9/11, that makes Americans feel very suspicious - which is a natural response after being attacked, since the survival instinct is the strongest instinct we have.

This isn't helped by the double standard, which demands that WE understand cartoon protesters (and everything else we object to in the Middle East on ethical grounds), while at the same time NO sympathy or understanding is directed toward the very real feelings of Americans.

No one is saying the UAE can't do business in the US. We're just saying that the most sensitive areas of the US in relation to security should be controlled by US companies. End of story.

That isn't racism, and anyone who suggests it is, IMO, has some anti-American sentiment. Bush is a fine example. I'll let you decide if the shoe fits you...

[JCMach1]

61. Shouldn't the British be suspicious then...?

after all, they were attacked less than a year ago. Not only that, DP is taking over ferry operations there>?

Yeah... Terrorism, 9/11, God bless Murika...


Your rhetoric goes to the heart of it.

It is racism, and I am profoundly pro-American. And you want to know a little secret, SO WAS THIS COUNTRY before this issue came up...

[FormerRepublican]

66. Dude, you have NO idea what's going on in Britain. You need...

...to cruise the message boards over there. They're more suspicious than you realize. And yes, from what I've heard, they object to the ports deal, too, although not on the scale we do.

Here's an example of a UK blog on terrorism:

Link to the Guardian

The ports deal isn't the hot button issue for the UK that it is for the US (probably because 7/7 didn't have the UAE links that 9/11 did), but their hot button is the cartoon protests:

Link to Guardian Blog on the Cartoon Protests

The sentiment seems to be pretty similar to me.

Edit to add: If the UAE turns against us because we don't want them running our ports, then we were right to prevent them in the first place. That's the very unreliability in an ally that we've been talking about.

Britain, in contrast, has stood by us steadfastly even when we led them into wars they opposed and got tons of their people killed (and god knows what else). You could count the number of times they've opposed us in the past 200 years on one hand (including the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812)!

[bettyellen]

74. two things about britain.... they have had dozens of worse terrorist

attacks over the years from the irish, they have beefed up security everywhere, are used to it. 7/7 was very small, done by those born and raised there, not comporable in many ways to 9/11.
and i bet the UK checks a great deal more than their cargo than we do. i mean, who doesn't? and americans are very aware that the govt is doing jack about port security. it has been an issue raised in the last four years- and this is pretty much the last straw.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. I have heard no suspicion in Britain at all

The only story here is "Americans object to P&O deal". And without going through the whole Guardian blog, I can't really see how the sentiments in the cartoon problem can be "we can't trust the Dubai (or generic Arab) government to be on our side".

[FormerRepublican]

108. Lord, who have you been talking to in Britain?

I've seen it on the blogs and even in the press. Not regarding the UAE, because that's not the hot button for Britain. But I've seen it regarding other countries. There was quite a bit about Pakistan right after 7/7 - you didn't see or hear that?

I'm assuming you're in the UK - what part? Maybe it's regionalized.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. We are talking about the UAE port deal

that's the whole point. I'm nor denying that there is racism in Britain, or anti-Muslim feeling. I'm saying that neither public, press, industry nor government in Britain is concerned about Dubai running British ports, ferries or a container shipping business.

[FormerRepublican]

126. But that's my point. The reason why Britain isn't as upset with the...

...UAE is because the UAE wasn't involved with 7/7. Pakistan was. So Pakistan is the one that gets bashed in the UK. IMO, that isn't about racism, it's about security. It's a natural human reaction. It's also a slightly different circumstance in Britain because the bombers were of Pakistani descent, but not actually from Pakistan, while in the US, all the terrorist were from foreign countries. That makes a difference WRT public sentiment and trust.

WRT the ports deal - I read an article from the UK probably the day before yesterday on the issue. Part of the concern was about non-UK citizens running the ports - the very issue we're talking about. I don't have easy access to UK links as you have there, so hunting that one up to show you at this late date... well, you know how it is. But I did see it. I think it was from a Scottish paper. Do you have a UK version of Google or something to take a look?

I'm sure it's not getting the attention that it is in the US, but Britain didn't have 2 of the 7/7 bombers from the UAE, and funding funnelled for the attacks through the UAE, etc. In fact, Britain didn't have foreign bombers at all!

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. If it was about security, then the US and British reactions

would be the same, because it would be an objective reaction. Since it's a different reaction, it's subjective - not based on an assessment of the safety of Dubai running a port, but a gut "9/11 hijackers came from the UAE" reaction.

British politicians did not call for special treatment of Pakistan after the London bombings. People who do start blaming Pakistan for the bombings are racist.

British online news turns up in a Google news search from the USA as well as Britain (the advanced news search allows you to limit the country to "United Kingdom"). Unless you can remember some specific language from the article, it may be difficult to weed out the articles talking about the American reaction - here's the results for Dubai port: Google search.

[FormerRepublican]

142. WRT Google, I have 1500+ articles on the American side of things...

...so tracking down the UK reaction would be a lost cause at this point, I think.

Lordie, the UK reaction to terrorists have been far more extreme than ours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4748277.stm

They photo every car and watch every vehicle trip, they have cameras all over the freaking place, they have much more draconian laws that allow suspected terrorists to be apprehended and held without charge or trial - worse than the Patriot Act...

WRT taking strong action against Pakistan over 7/7 - well, that would be hard to do since the bombers were born in the UK. There's also the old colonial relationship to consider... But the sentiment is there.

I'll answer with the words of a tube bomb father:

"He said: "As soon as anybody starts to do something about it somebody sticks their hands in the air and says 'What about their human rights?' What about the human rights of my daughter and the 50-odd people on July 7?""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4521956.stm

[mondo joe]

145. That's ridiculous. No two people's reactions are always the same - why

would two nations necessarily be the same?

Really, that is the most arbitrary ridiculous standard yet.

[stepnw1f]

77. Notice He Did Not Cite Examples?

[mondo joe]

85. Every person who has claimed Arab bashing has failed to demonstrate

it - and least on the many threads I've followed.

[stepnw1f]

88. I Know... That's Why I'm On the Attack

or I'd be a bit more careful in calling this guy out.

Check out who this guy is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=489976&mesg_id=490027

[mondo joe]

91. Oh I know he works for the government he's defending -- something I

can hardly imagine being able to live with. But he's not the only one.

I'd just like them to remember the UAE is a government, not a race.

[Hatalles]

118. I don't understand.

I work for the state of CA. How does that implicate me in everything the state does?

[mondo joe]

122. Who said it implicated him in everything the country does?

That's sort of dumb.

What it does reveal is a conflict of interest.

You know - like we usually point out about Cheney and Halliburton or having energy lobbyists informing energy policy.

[stepnw1f]

124. Exactly

A HUGE conflict of interest. Hehe... and you and I are racists... nifty trick. They blame us of wrongdoing, while their masters rip off this country and make us all more vulnerable to terrorism.

[Hatalles]

128. Thank you for your kind response.

Can we go back to the OP? I don't see how he is supposedly "defending" the UAE. I can't speak for JCMach but I don't read anywhere where he believes the deal should go through. I don't see a conflict of interest if he is arguing against the port deal.

[mondo joe]

130. He's defending the UAE by falsely labeling opposition to it as racism.

Let me know if I can help you out again.

[Hatalles]

132. Re

I oppose the UAE deal but I recognize what I see as the xenophobic elements that pervade the entire controversy -- the fact remains, IMHO, that this story would not have had so much traction if an Arab country was not involved. Granted, there ARE people out there that probably oppose it for purely racist reasons but I don't think he's saying all opposition to it is racist.

[mondo joe]

135. You may see what you wish to see (and propably do).

Posters on DU have articulated many reasons for their opposition based on the conditions of ownership which are NOT racist.

By JC continues to ignore those, and hypes opposition here on DU which is virtually non existent rather than addressing the very legitimate arguments that have been presented.

[Hatalles]

127. self delete

[bettyellen]

137. yeah, it's ethically lacking, isn't it... and he claims they can take or

leave the deal. gosh, why does that seem like BS as well?

[mondo joe]

141. He claims it's no big deal for the UAE too. The same UAE that hired Bob

Dole to lobby for them, is pressuring congress and CNN.

No big deal my ass.

[JCMach1]

148. There was one question asked in Parliament when this was under

consideration.

That was the extent of the Public Debate.

[nonconformist]

41. Give me a break.

Equating opposition to this deal as racist or xenophobic smacks of saying that if you criticize the American government, you are anti-American.

And your other thoughts aren't being addressed because you accuse the reader instantly of "Arab bashing".

[JCMach1]

51. The framing is profoundly racist and has mentioned

9/11 almost as much as a Bush speech...

[nonconformist]

60. Currently, "Bush speak" is accusing opponents of racism.

And saying that it has nothing to do with security. And repeatedly pointing out Britain's role in our ports.

But I digress.

Please give examples of how the issue here at DU has been framed in a profoundly racist way. And also please explain why the mere mention of 9/11 is racist.

[JCMach1]

149. 'Baby Boys' pictures of Saudi Royalty with Bush

when talking about the UAE. Referring to a private company as 'the UAE government'

Need I go on... But I am also referring to the MSM.

[mondo joe]

102. Of course 911 is a factor in considering security. So is Iraq.

How could you be surprised by that?

And how could you imagine that governments are races?

[sandnsea]

48. Bush is bad for the world, doh

Yeah, we get that. Bush and the corporatists are only interested in global dominance and certain Arab elites are right in there with them. No shit. I'd stop it tomorrow if I could, but I can't.

Beyomd that though, there really are terrorists and they really did attack this country and other interests around the world. They really are connected to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I really am sick of our government playing footsie with them because of oil. When our very port operations are being sold off, then it's time to put the brakes on and say NO MORE. Don't tell me we have to spend billions to supposedly fight terrorists, and then turn right around and give them the opportunity to attack through the back door. Giving port management to any other country is stupid, to give it to countries who have been less than altruistic in ending the fundamentalist extremism that fuels terrorism is insanity.

[liberal N proud]

53. No Arab bashing, American should run American Ports!

Would the Arabs sell their ports to us?
Would any country sell their ports? NO! We are the only stupid mf'rs on the face of this earth.

[JCMach1]

55. Then tell the media and everyone else to stop

framing it as an Arab issue

[mondo joe]

87. HAHAHAHAHAHA Because after all, DU controls the media.

Not to mention "everyone else".

Hey pal, tell your friends to stop imprisoning gay men for being gay, okay?

[JCMach1]

150. You just provided a good example of how the issue is being framed

x issue (regardless of context or details) means that the UAE should not control ports.


Hey US, why don't you stop BASHING and TAKING CIVIL LIBERTIES away from Gay people!

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. P&O run ports in 18 countries

The USA is just one of them. The US ports business is only 6% of P&O's business: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/21/port.europe/ . None of the other countries are complaining.

[bettyellen]

76. are their ports run as half assed as we allow them to be?

what % of cargo is checked in those countries?
have those countries been attacked using money that came from the UAE?

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. The money 'came from the UAE' in the same sense that it 'came from' the US

it went through the US banking system, just as it went through the UAE banking system. Given that the UAE is the hub of world Muslim banking, it's not that surprising.

If the cargo checking is the problem, then that needs to be addressed by the USA, not by saying that it's who runs the ports is the problem. It's not as if US cargo is checked differently in operations run by American companies.

[bettyellen]

136. how do you know where the money came from, seeing as how

they witheld those records from us?
and i think the fact that we are lax with security is a reason people feel we need a more historically trustworthy partner.

[JCMach1]

59. Most of the posts here have failed to note that I agree with

a lot of their positions in the OP...

I think the reaction to the framing issue speaks volumes.

There are many people who are viewing this issue through a very ugly set of lenses... right, or wrong on the substance.

[Rex]

63. Sounds like you're taking this personally.

I don't doubt there are racists on both sides, but so far I really haven't seen it here at DU. Ignorance, yes. Racism, no.

[mondo joe]

92. When it impacts your checkbook it gets personal, I'd guess.

But the plain fact is the UAE is not a race.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

64. I think you're right.....

Its the whole "Red Scare" thing all over again. Please pay attention to all the scary Arabs, and don't mind all the white guys getting filthy rich. All they've done is replace "communist" with "terrorist".

If you haven't done so, check out the BBC program "The Power of Nightmares". It lays the neocon playbook bare and really demystifies this whole negative attention on the UAE, even if some allegations are warranted.

That said, I agree with many posters that say that US ports should be owned and secured by domestic means.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

78. i think so too.

[Lars39]

79. *ahem*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=489976&mesg_id=490027

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[QC]

83. Well, that certainly explains a lot. n/t

[Hatalles]

97. Wow. Wonderful example of an ad hominem circumstantial attack.

[Lars39]

101. Sunshine is a wonderful thing.

[Hatalles]

104. I get plenty, thanks.

[bettyellen]

138. from the neck down?

[mondo joe]

103. Exposing conflicts of interest is an ad hominem attack now?

Wow!

[Lars39]

105. No. Go look it up.

It means revealing someone's position that could cause them to be biased.

[Hatalles]

106. Please focus on the argument, not the person.

[bettyellen]

139. or be careful to consider the source of inflammatory propaganda

such as this OP. Who could believe he or the UAE has no stake in this?
You'd be a fool.

[Hatalles]

143. Re

I work for the state of CA, what do I have to gain if my state strikes a port deal with Japan? The UAE may have a stake in it, that doesn't mean he does. Like I said, ad hominem circumstantial... I'm not going to wallow in it.

[mondo joe]

144. I'll look for you to post the same next time it is noted that Cheney

has ties to Halliburton that may represent a conflict of interest and so on.

Thanks!

[bettyellen]

165. OP=Original Poster, not you, works for the UAE royal family... had not

mentioned it in this thread, where it would expose his conflict of interest. and there most certainly is one.
you think that has nothing to do with flooding the boards with inflammatory accusations of racism?

[Ladyhawk]

152. Well, this explains the whole thread. Thanks, Lars39.

Now I don't have to read the rest of it. :D

[Dutch]

159. Suddenly, it all becomes so clear....

Thanks Lars.

[mondo joe]

84. Please cite posts of "Arab bashing" if any exist on DU.

And please don't mistake bashing the government of a country with bashing a race. Thank you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. See post #62 (n/t)

[mondo joe]

99. Countries are not races.

The UAE is not a race.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. But they advocate genocide for whole countries

because 9/11 bombers came from there, or had help from people in those countries. You don't think that's a bit racist?

How about

Arabs Are In Charge Of Our Ports

The B*** admin can spin this, and blah, blah, blah all they want but regular Americans are getting a simple message: B*** has turned our security over to the Arabs. He has done what Zell Miller said John Kerry would do, outsourced our security to the terrorists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=473881

[mondo joe]

117. Incorrect again. Genocide refers to races, not countries.

There have certainly been peopler who called for nuking the Soviet Union -- were they calling for the genocide of white people?

There are some that call for the death of the USA -- which race do you think they're calling for elliminating THERE I wonder.

What you're stuck with is some very shady governments which as it happpens have majority Arab populations. They don't necessarily reflect or represent their citizenry, and I'd say frequently don't at all. And you have a region that is very unstable, and a region which has growing anti-American resentment (often for very good reasons, like an illegal war and occupation).

Those are important factors, but they are about the governments, not the people.

Annd I'm telling you this as someone with an Arab American spouse who is as opposed to this deal as anyone on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. Definition of genocide

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/genocide

Turning a country into a "parking lot" is genocide - it's not aimed at a government.

[mondo joe]

123. I don't know who every rant is aimed at - you do recognize a rant I

trust. But you evaded every point laid out in my post.

And to smear DU as anti Arab racists is appalling. In light of the staunch DU defense of Arabs harmed by the war, imprisoned in Guantanamo and menaced across the board by neocons and racists, to smear DU as racist on this matter is a disgrace.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. It's not the rant that is 'aimed' - it's the genocide

I'm not evading the points in your post. Gencoide includes wiping out political and cultural groups. So, yes, calling for the murder of all Americans is genocide. So is calling for the nuking of the Soviet Union. I thought I had made that plain by giving the definition of genocide.

I'm saying someone who called 3 Arab countries "toiletbowls" and called for them to be turned in to parking lots is racist, and the 15 people who recommended his post; not the whole of DU.

[FreedomAngel82]

86. Ding ding ding

You're the winner! You got it all right. It's not about rascism. It's about security. Kerry warned about this in 2004 but as usual nobody listened to him.

[JCMach1]

154. Dems should be framing the issue in this manner

and push ahead of the Repigs on the issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Erecting false bogeymen is a popular sport for politicians.

Personally, I don't give a rip which corporation runs the ports, whether the UAE or Halliburton. They're all corrupt capitalists.

But, scaring the hell out of people and arounsing xenophobia is a handy pastime for ambitious pols - of either wing of the ruling class party.

[Hatalles]

98. Exactly.

eom

[CJCRANE]

160. The issue is the CRONYISM, HYPOCRISY and LIHOP mentality.

Bushco whips up the whole country into hysteria about arabs/muslims that they all want to destroy America and "kill the infidels", while secretly doing a backroom deal and appointing cronies who stand to gain a fortune from the deal.

The scary thing is not the UAE running the ports: it is the UAE + Bushco cronies and that's the scary part.

The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi/UAE but it took Bushco to disable America's defences and let it happen. With Bushco connections to this port deal what's to stop them from doing another LIHOP and blaming it on some one else (just like 9/11=> Iraq)?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

110. Call me a Xenophobe if you want, but I believe we should not sell the US

IMO this epitomizes the problems inherent with the Corporate Global Economy.

It makes things needlessly complicated and takes things further from our ability to deal with them.

I believe we still need nations and governm,ents, and noit just be slaves to the nebulous forces of Global Capital. That includes security -- both economic and defense. I'm NOT opposed to international trade. But I do think we need to bring the economy back down to earth.

In this case, it makes us more subject to what happens in the UAE, instead of what we believe should be done for port security. Why add that level of volatility and lack of control over a basic part of out economic infrastructure.

[JCMach1]

153. You are already subject to that... What happens if you piss off

the UAE enough that they only sell oil to India and China and stop cooperating with the U.S. on security issues?

[Armstead]

164. If they really are our friends, they wull understand

It's not like having these ports is crucial to their economic well-being. It's just anotehr few little carrots in their much larger "portfolio" of holdings.

If they really are our friends, they will understand our concerns and walk away from it, realizing the reason for our concerns.

It's like if one of my friends asked to buy my prized dinner table and I said no, that doesn;t mean the friendship has to end.

[mondo joe]

114. JCMach, I'll answer you. But I don't think you'll like it.

Be it Dubai or the UAE, it is the goverment - not the race - that DU posters object to. Neither the UAE or Dubbai are a race, nor are they a reflection of arabs per se or as a whole.

Are the ports well protected now? No. But that's a poor reason to take on additional risk.

Why not gripe about Britain? First off, a lot of people didn't know about it. Many have since said they don't want Britain doing it either. But beyond that, not all governments or vendors are the same. The British company is not state owned, but even if it were, Britain has been the most steadfast ally of the US for as long as any living person can remember. If you're going to have someone other than the US mannage the ports, certainly not every possibility is equal in terms of relationship or trust.

Would you trust your child to your lifelong best friend more than the new neighbor?

[JCMach1]

151. There are huge connection to Britain and terrorism

Where were your concerns then?

Huge terrorist attacks, shoe bombers originating from there, large disaffected immigrant population... What's safe about that?

[FormerRepublican]

156. UAE has been an unreliable ally. Britain hasn't.

If we ask Britain to track money through their banking system so we can trace terrorists, they wouldn't even hesitate. Our relationship with Britain has been that reliable for DECADES! They followed us into the Iraq war disaster when the vast majority of the UK public opposed it! And they're not even raking us over the coals over it!

How long has UAE been an ally? And are they a reliable ally now? Didn't they refuse to trace funds for terrorist attacks, were unable to provide full assistance in the tracking of nuclear parts, etc?

We're talking about two different levels of cooperation. And for a critical infrastructure with national security implications, that's important.

[JCMach1]

157. UAE has been an ally since it became a country...

since the time of the Cold War.

The UAE has only been independent since 1974. Most DUers are older than this country.

[rman]

161. UK govt. didn't vacation with OBL

Bush ally in war on terror vacationed with bin Laden...
http://www.madcowprod.com/11122004issue.html
Mohammed bin Zayid, the UAE's Crown Prince and Chief of Staff, is tied to al-Qaeda yet regularly meets with Bush Administration Officials to discuss the prevention of terrorism.
November 25, 2004 - Venice, FL
by Grant Noah

The United Arab Emirates, one of the U.S. government’s closest allies in the War on Terror, has a new King and Crown Prince. Earlier this month the UAE’s long-time ruler passed away at the age of 86.

Reuters, November 2, 2004:

“The president of OPEC member the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, has died… The UAE holds 98 billion barrels of oil reserves, close to nine percent of the world's total”…

“Last year he paved the way for a smooth transfer of power after his death, appointing his son Sheikh Mohammed as deputy crown prince of Abu Dhabi which puts him second in line to rule Abu Dhabi after the succession of his brother Sheikh Khalifa.”
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=614031§ion=news

<snip>

So these agents report that they followed bin Laden to this camp and the CIA puts a satellite up and takes some pictures. Then they see a C-130 transport plane. They trace the plane to the United Arab Emirates…
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/03/03/coll/index_np.html

[mondo joe]

163. Not to the Briitish government, pal. And you said yourself the UAE

is a "work in progress". Doesn't sound that reliable to me.

[rodeodance]

129. yes, Bush needs UAE for its miliary geopolitical signifigance.

.....3. So, why does Bush care? It's about Iraq and the oil. He needs the UAE much more than they need him. He needs the UAE as a logistical base of operations against Iraq and Iran. Additionally, he wants to keep the oil flowing. There are many regional partners (such as India and perhaps China) who would gladly step into any void left by a rift with the U.S.

[Wordie]

169. From what you just said, it appears we may all need the UAE...

I mean, I don't mind not having a car, but sure do like keeping my house warm in the winter.

There are of course larger implications to the deal. Thanks for pointing this overlooked part of it out to us, rodeodance. Imho, it's better to keep the oil flowing (until we develop reliable alternatives) this way, than using the previous strategy (invading a country that didn't attack us), which hasn't seemed to work out so well anyway. :(

[JCMach1]

155. Another good take on this with similar conclusions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x504839

[KoKo]

168. This still doesn't discount your "dog in this hunt" and Dubai Flag as your

avatar. I think the Dubai flag as your avatar sort of says where you are coming from. It's hard to get beyond that.

And..yes I know your DU History.