Disagreement means destruction?

[Ferno]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/ ... index.html

\"The announcement came on the heels of comments from the second in command at the Pentagon, who said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.\"

Shut up Washington. Just. Shut. Up.

No one has ever been harmed just because they were criticized.

[Duper]

um, why would we want another country controlling our ports anyway?

[CDN_Merlin]

um, why would we want another country controlling our ports anyway?

All about the mighty dollar.

[Will Robinson]

All about the mighty dollar.

Is there any reason a business deal shouldn't concern the mighty dollar?

Can anyone give a specific reason why this company shouldn't manage the unloading and loading of shipping containers in some of our ports? Or is being arab reason enough to lose your opportunities to do business in the U.S.?
If so, what other arab businesses should we shut down?
Shouldn't we also apply these new zero tolerance standards to other countries that are even less of an ally to the U.S.? What about other countries that have"control" of our ports and airports?

This whole thing is just like the islamo-facsist clerics stirring up hatred in the muslim world over the cartoon showing muhammed as a terrorist....only over here we're a little more civilized.
We don't riot and burn and kill we just use our power and money to ban them from joining us in the modern world.
But make no mistake about it, you are still letting some politicians whip you into a frenzied mob-mentality just like they are doing over the muhammed cartoons.

Listening to this anti-arab logic is like listening to a speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally tell me why I should hate the black man.

****************
U.S. ports are security risk, but not because of Arab deal

Flap over terminal operations masks real problems

The Detroit News /

U.S. ports are vulnerable to terrorist attacks -- but it's not because an Arab company bought a British company that happens to manage a few shipping terminals in New York and other U.S. ports.

The hysteria whipped up by politicians in an election year borders on Arab-bashing and does nothing to promote security or America's image around the world.

Dubai Ports World bought a company that is little more than baggage handlers, employing mostly Americans who transfer cargo on and off ships. The Dubai company is controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a U.S. ally that contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, nearly four times as much as received from all other countries combined.

A lot of foreign countries, including China, operate U.S. shipping terminals. Similarly, foreign airlines lease and operate whole rows of gates at U.S. airports.

Both sets of arrangements are acceptable because neither port companies nor foreign airlines are responsible for security, which remains in the hands of U.S. law enforcement.

U.S. officials wouldn't and haven't compromised port security in dealing with those countries -- nor has it done so in the UAE decision. The British managers of the company that actually runs the disputed port operations are scratching their heads because new owners won't change either their operations or U.S. security rules.

There are, however, real port security problems, including the 11 million 40-foot-long containers that enter the country every year. Only 5 percent get proper scrutiny.

Terrorists could use the containers to smuggle in a nuclear bomb or radioactive material for a "dirty bomb." But U.S. detection efforts are wholly inadequate. Many of the mobile radiation detectors used work only half the time, according to a recent report. The country is still at risk for another major attack more than four years after September 11.

The UAE understands U.S. politics and on Friday offered to put its deal on hold until the hysteria fanned by U.S. politicians subsides.

When it does, let the deal go through and concentrate on real problems including fixing the system to inspect cargo containers.
***********************

[dissent]

Regarding the OP, yeah, I agree that public disagreement with policy decisions is one of the things that we do in this country, in a free society. Heck, it's practically a product; I wonder what could happen if we could factor this into our GDP.

Besides the real problem is all the extra CO2 that gets generated when have these disagreements, hence warming the planet even further ...
(feeble attempt to derail thread - duly noted and ignored)

I guess I'm less concerned about this deal than I was when I first heard about it. If Dubai Ports World is a really well managed company that does a good job moving containers around, then why shouldn't they operate at our ports. This isn't really about \"turning our ports over to another country\". We're not giving them a deed to the property.

I still stand by my beef that the Bush Administration screwed up on the communication end of this deal. Had they made some effort to see some of the ways that people would have perceived this deal, and dealt with them earlier in the approval process, this wouldn't be such a flap now.

[Testiculese]

Only American citizens should be able to own land in this country. Japanese, Arab, all of them. Bad enough the corporations here fleece us dry, we dont' really need businessmen from other countries siphoning profits right out of the country.

[Duper]

um, why would we want another country controlling our ports anyway?

All about the mighty dollar.

Really, that's utter foolishness. If we truely allow this, then we deserver whatever raping we get. Idiots.

[Ferno]

heh. this isn't about 'letting a company try it out'.

this is about people that are being labeled unpatriotic if they disagree with Washington's decision.

and

when people can't get a job other than in the fast food or knowledge industry, don't say you didn't see it coming.

[Will Robinson]

...this is about people that are being labeled unpatriotic if they disagree with Washington's decision....

That's funny here's the actual statement "Washington" made:

"The announcement came on the heels of comments from the second in command at the Pentagon, who said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

I don't see him labeling anyone as unpatriotic. I do see him warning people that their protest could undermine a relationship with an ally and that could be harmful to national security.

Being a patriot doesn't mean you can't be wrong about this and ultimately make things dificult for your country. Being a patriot doesn't necessarily mean you're smart enough to recognize when you're being manipulated by politicians who are demagoguing an issue so they can posture their way back into office this election...

[Ferno]

I don't see him labeling anyone as unpatriotic.

The announcement came on the heels of comments from the second in command at the Pentagon, who said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

*cough*

[Will Robinson]

I don't see him labeling anyone as unpatriotic.

The announcement came on the heels of comments from the second in command at the Pentagon, who said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

*cough*

He doesn't mention patriotism anywhere in that statement.

As I pointed out, someone can still be a patriot but be wrong about protesting the UAE company deal. Therefore you're not un-patriotic for protesting the deal but, as he says, by doing so you are potentially damaging our security by alienating an ally.
Basically being a patriot doesn't guarantee you aren't also stupid or ignorant so if you are a patriot and you take a stupid position you are susceptible to criticism and you can't play the patriot card to deflect the criticism.

So try again to find fault with his position based on substantive argument instead of dodging his point by crying for a referee!

[Genghis]

It's interesting to see the administration appealing to logic in this particular issue, when in most issues they rely instead on emotional appeals.

In this port issue, they are saying the UAE is a valued ally in the war on terror, so trust them on the port thing. Yet a chunk of the funding for 9/11 came out of the UAE, as did a number of the actual participants (from what various news sources are saying). So which is it? Ally or terrorists? If we had a desire to go in and chown UAE, we've already got a box full of reasons.

On the other hand, Iraq had demonstrably nothing to do with 9/11, yet they get villified for terrorism.

It just shouldnt' escape anyone's notice that the spin put on these issues is enough to torque the neck of an elephant.

[Will Robinson]

...In this port issue, they are saying the UAE is a valued ally in the war on terror, so trust them on the port thing. Yet a chunk of the funding for 9/11 came out of the UAE, as did a number of the actual participants (from what various news sources are saying). So which is it? Ally or terrorists?

I think you are letting loose with a little spin yourself, or repeating some you've picked up along the way.
The main thrust of the support within the administration is based on the fact that since 9/11 the UAE has really stepped up to the plate and delivered.
Also, just because some of the funding for the 9/11 attackers was moved through the UAE and we don't know if any of it even came from individuals actually living in the UAE or was it just relayed through there, certainly no one has ever suggested that the actual government of the UAE funded any of the 9/11 attackers. Where as Saddam openly funded suicide bombers in Israel and other terrorists who attacked western interests, and he provided sanctuary for them in Iraq, permanent shelter or temporary shelter for medical treatment etc. And he did those things for many years. That wasn't all he did to get on the ★■◆● list either.

So, we had 2 of the 19 9/11 attackers came from the UAE but that doesn't necessarily reveal anything about the UAE government. All of the 9/11 pilots came from american flight schools should we believe those americans flight schools, or the american government was behind the attack?

[Ferno]

Therefore you're not un-patriotic for protesting the deal but, as he says, by doing so you are potentially damaging our security by alienating an ally.

how does 'alienating an ally' threaten national security? As it stands now, that statement makes absolutely no sense.

as for your reply to genghis, it looks as if you're trying the 'saddam - terrorism' trick that's been tried before.

[Will Robinson]

Therefore you're not un-patriotic for protesting the deal but, as he says, by doing so you are potentially damaging our security by alienating an ally.

how does 'alienating an ally' threaten national security? As it stands now, that statement makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if you bothered to learn something about the UAE and what they've been doing since 9/11....

It makes sense because they are a new arab ally, a rare and vital component to the success of our efforts in the middle east. An ally that has been trying to help us in numerous ways, letting us use their ports for our military, their air space for military flights, providing intelligence for our operations in the region....
They were the first middle eastern country to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) allowing U.S. Customs officials to be on site inspecting the containers in their ports before they are shipped to the U.S.
And they were the first Middle Eastern country to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program designed to stop illegal shipments of nuclear material. They have worked as our emissary in dealings with other arab states. They have provided support for the new governments of Iraq and Afghanastan as well as humanitarian relief for the people there.
They have gone out of their way to befriend us, donating something like 100 million dollars for Katrina relief as soon as the disaster struck, more than all the other nations combined.

But hey!!! They're still arabs and all arabs are terrorists right? So lets keep them in their place. They can help us all they want but we'll not tolerate them working in america will we?!? It's not like we need to win the hearts and minds of people in the region do we?!?

as for your reply to genghis, it looks as if you're trying the 'saddam - terrorism' trick that's been tried before.

Please take the points I raised about Saddam and show me how they are false. Otherwise please don't describe it as a trick. What I said about Saddam is true, his support for terrorists is well documented. So if you want to challenge my position on that please feel free to try but use some substance, some factual details that might show me to be wrong because simply declaring it to be a trick doesn't prove ★■◆●.

[Genghis]

You're making my point for me, Will. I didn't make it very clearly the first time around on account of the drinking.

I'm just noting the irony of the situation. Usually the administration prefers to gloss over the details of these foreign political situations, relying instead on gut reactions and surficial perceptions. However, in this case of the UAE, gut reactions and surficial perceptions are contrary to the administrations cause. So in this case they actually want us to look at the details and get a complete picture of the UAE situation.

[Will Robinson]

You're making my point for me, Will. I didn't make it very clearly the first time around on account of the drinking.

I'm just noting the irony of the situation. Usually the administration prefers to gloss over the details of these foreign political situations, relying instead on gut reactions and surficial perceptions. However, in this case of the UAE, gut reactions and surficial perceptions are contrary to the administrations cause. So in this case they actually want us to look at the details and get a complete picture of the UAE situation.

My bad then, I thought you were just trying paint the UAE as a government more responsible for terrorism than Iraq and hold that up as hypocrisy. I don't doubt that they have contributed funding to some terrorist type orginazations in the past, it seems all middle eastern nations have, it's a way to keep the islamo-facsists running the mosques in their own countries from issuing fatwahs against them.
But Saddam in Iraq had no fear of that kind of internal pressure, everyone living within his grasp was subject to his boot on their neck, if a cleric in Bahgdad even issued an unfavorable statement to his flock about Saddam the cleric was removed from the living...

Yet inspite of his secular and omnipotent freedom from terrorist factions he was blatently open with his support for those groups when ever it suited his agenda or desire to wreak havoc on his enemies. He was a friend, financier and sanctuary to terrorists in a much more consistant and purposeful manner than the UAE who may have paid protection money to the various islamo-facsists.

As to the hypocrisy of the Bush administration in the way they fearmonger to take advantage of the knee-jerks when it suited them to stir up support for their agenda...you bet they did it.
And then the way in this case they suggest we look at the details and recognize the knee-jerk reaction isn't really wise or based in fact...yep, they are guilty as charged. Hypocrits to the core.

The thing is, I can't go along with the hysteria just because opposing it requires subtle understanding and educating oneself on the issue that the general public won't have.

I have to just follow my gut instincts and let the chips fall where they may.
In this case it looks like most democrats (maybe all except Lieberman) and many republicans (those in districts where the xenophobes and bigots vote or the anti-Bush vote is strongest) are playing the fear card, pandering for votes because it's so easy to stir up anti-arab sentiment when the topic is security.
It's aggravating to see them get away with that and the press refuse to objectively explore the issues (are they just biased...maybe just chasing controversy for easy ratings...maybe they know if they try to explain the subtle details they will lose their attention deficit audience).

All I know is, to blindly go along with the anti-arab sentiment in this case is to alienate an arab country that might be the first arab entity to really be on the path to meeting the western cultures on a secular playing field (not withstanding Anwar Sadat's Egypt).

I think if we aren't going to throw out all forms of arab intrusion into security sensative business we shouldn't single out the UAE at this time. In fact even if it is wise to exclude arabs or all foriegners from these positions we should really consider letting the UAE get it's reward and recognition in some fashion for their turnaround post 9/11 before we close the doors.

[*JBOMB*]

Bravo to Will for havng the patience to post such lengthy replies in an effort to teach uninformed idiots why blurting out off the cuff bandwagon hot topic statements doesnt mean you are smart and/or look it.

How you do it..i will never know. Kudos Will.

[CUDA]

In this port issue, they are saying the UAE is a valued ally in the war on terror, so trust them on the port thing. Yet a chunk of the funding for 9/11 came out of the UAE, as did a number of the actual participants (from what various news sources are saying).

Actualy the money didnt come from the UAE it came "through" banks in the UAE, just as it came through banks in Arizona, Nevada, and New Jersey as well as banks in France and Germany, lets not forget that the ports do not handle the inspection and security of the cargo being shipped, that is done by the Coast Guard and US Customs. I wonder if anyone here also realises that there are several port companies owned by China and Venezuela also. and if memeory serves these countries are not exactly friendly to the US right now.

[VonVulcan]

Bravo to Will for havng the patience to post such lengthy replies in an effort to teach uninformed idiots why blurting out off the cuff bandwagon hot topic statements doesnt mean you are smart and/or look it.

How you do it..i will never know. Kudos Will.

X2