We’ve been attacked by as many terrorists from Britain as from the UAE, ya know. You remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, right?
Gee, when Clinton “allowed” a Hong Kong company to get the contract to run the ports at the ends of the Panama Canal, he was selling out a vital US asset to the Commies. The RW press isn’t saying quite so much about this, though.
I think the most reasonable (and reasoned) objections to this deal I have seen involve the fact that the company is state-owned. While there is a formal separation between the government and the state-owned company, it seems like the less knee-jerk objectioners argue that this connection is still too close and that it would be highly questionable to put a non-American, state-owned company in charge of US ports no matter the country.
Not to pretend this isn’t anything more than anecdotal, but it wasn’t too uncommon to hear stories of American tourists in Europe getting yelled at, challenged, or just lectured by locals who assumed that Americans=Bush supporters, particularly before, during, and immediately after the “major combat operations” part of the Iraq war. Of course it’s wrong and all that, but given how 9/11 and Iraq have stirred many people up, it shouldn’t be too shocking when some people equate a person’s nationality with stereotypes or policies connected with that country.
Game over, man! GAME OVER! What are we gonna do now? We’re FUCKED!
Here’s my problem with the whole thing. The news report I heard said that this decision was made secretly. The administration hasn’t been forthcoming as to why they chose a country that has been laundering terrorist money.
Also, why can’t we manage our own ports? Is there a reason that we have outsiders (regardless of which country) doing this for us?
My understanding is that they would not be making policy or managing security, but I’d think that since we’ve already admitted we don’t/can’t inspect the vast majority of containers coming into these ports, we’d want as complete control as possible over the entire operation. It just seems that it’d be more difficult to achieve that when another country is managing it.
I’d like more information before I can get a good feel on this one way or the other. But on the surface it’s at least a little unsettling.
I’m sure that did happen - quite a lot of people are prejudiced against Americans to begin with. But I can’t recall (I could be wrong) anything similar to this, with US politicians making political hay out of the situation. And I agree that it isn’t shocking when people equate one citizen with the whole… People are, for a large part, pretty defensive. But it is a regrettable, and foolish, trend.
Didn’t you hear? 9/11 changed everything.
It is, however, true that women cannot always guarantee that the progressive and egalitarian attitude displayed by middle eastern Muslim men while in the US and Canada is that which will be displayed once back in the middle east. This is particularly true, the State Department advises, in Saudi Arabia. (Note that I’m saying nothing about the UAE or the ports deal)
The State Department cautions women in the US who plan to marry Saudi nationals while living in the US that their lives can (and often do) drastically change once the husband and wife relocate back to Saudi Arabia.
I also found this posting, which claims to have been originally posted on the State Department website.
So there is some basis other than a Lifetime TV movie for the idea that things often change when the Muslim man gets his western wife home to the middle east.
7 points for passion.
Deduct 1 for punctuational diarrhea.
Deduct 6 for making me think Cathy had begun posting on the SDMB.
No score. The bus back to the village leaves in ten minutes.
Aw, c’mon, Cervaise. You gotta give her points for gratuitous use of the word “Fuck”. It may not have been fucking brilliant, but it was entertaining in a “WTF” sort of way.
Aw, c’mon. Re: evul Ay-rab men, I think the intensely sweet Persian Ba’hai boy I knew in college would be incapable of mistreating a pigeon, let alone another human being. Power surely does corrupt, and I’m sure that some ordinarily quite inoffensive people will become unrecognizable when put into a situation where society’s mores are far different. Anyone remember the Milgram study?
As for those armies of terrorists from the UAE, give me a break. Might as well say that Colorado is a hotbed of violent young child-murdering hotheads. We see more terrorism from domestic sources than international; wasn’t that anthrax scare in late '01/early '02 from a much closer-to-home group? The UAE, of all the nations in that little nodule around Saudi Arabia, is one of the friendliest to Westerners. I’m not the first person to say it in this thread, though, so I’ll leave it there. 
I think someone needs to remind the OP that speedballs haven’t been cool since 1986 or so.
To me, it’s both fascinating and horrifying to watch paranoia and ignorance undermine the whole notion that the War on Terror isn’t a war on brown people.
I don’t think it is a big security concern, but if it will cause a rift between the Republican leadership and the White House, I’m all for it.
Let’s you and him fight. 
The US didn’t choose Dubai Ports World - DPW made a competitive bid to purchase P & O, a British firm. P & O just so happens to conduct ports operations (NOT SECURITY) in 6 US ports.
US involvement had to do with the US committee giving the OK on the deal as it affected those assests in the US. It was done in secret (as I understand it) only on those matters as it pertained to security matters (per Chertoff from DHS) - ensuring that DPW would be in compliance with US security laws/policies and agreements the US already has with UAE/DPW (who do you think checks cargo at Dubai or any other port in the world? THere’s as much a security concern at ports of origin as ports of destination - the US has been quite vigorous in this regards).
Part of it is just the nature of the business - maritime shipping is a global business. My understanding is that there isn’t any large US company that can compete with the biggies. Economies of scale, and all that.
How would it be more difficult? DPW (or any other foreign firm) would still have to comply with US laws, regulations, and all matters pertaining to security. The people who would be working the docks would be US dockworkers. The managers would still be those from P & O - largely expats from US and UK. Those people should have already been vetted by US security people.
I agree there needs to be more transparency on the security side - maybe if DHS and the government can show the American people that it’s doing everything possible to make ports safer then it wouldn’t be a major issue. But this should be an issue regardless of whether DPW does port operations or whether some other foreign firm does it (or even if it’s an American firm).
for a second, I thought the Family Guy version of Margot Kidder had started posting.
For Pete’s sake, can we just stop being afraid of the bogeyman anymore? It’s nice to know that there is something that can get bipartisan support in Congress. It’s scary to think that this is it.
:rolleyes:
We need to find a way to come to terms with terrorism. This is a positive first step. When nothing happens people will see that not all Arabs are bad guys and we can start to get over this xenophobia we’ve been having for the past 5 years.
Or, alternatively, we can continue to discriminate and get absolutely nowhere and piss off some more Arabs who don’t already hate us. I much prefer choice number 1, myself. President Bush is doing the right thing on this one.
By doing what?
By allowing the company to do its business.
As opposed to? Not allowing the company to do it’s business? I didn’t realise your President had the power to control a UAE-based company taking over a British one.
Please note that Jimmy Carter has no problem with this arrangement. Of course, he’s speaking strictly from the national security aspect. It is still a shady dea, considering the ties to DP World that David Snow (former chairman of CSX that sold its port operations to DP World) and David Sanborn (head of the US Maritime Association appointed by Bush and a DP executive) have.
May we expect the sequel: "Not Without My Son"?