The UAE Port Deal is Not About "Arabs"

[louis c]

First off, my position and nearly everyone here at DU has been perfectly consistent as to our national security objectives since 9/11.

Very few, if any, DUers criticized or disagreed with the military involvement in Afghanistan. The connections to terrorists that attacked us was direct and incontrovertible. The Talibin had to be removed and al-Queda had to brought to justice.

Our objection was to invading Iraq when there were no connections to attacks against us by them. No hijackers came from there, no money was traced to there, no Iraqi nationals were involved at any level of the 9/11 conspiracy.

I think, as a union member, that American companies should run our ports. Whether the decision to outsource to a foreign nation was made by a Democrat or a Republican, I believe that it's wrong. However, our national security is less at risk from a private company from a country with no links to terrorism than to the UAE.

Bush has repeated ad infinitum about a "pre-911" mind-set and a "post 9/11" mind-set. Shouldn't our post 9/11 mind-set make securing our borders and ports our first priority?

Cheap labor with workers' visas and business as usual deals at our ports with the excuse that "Clinton did it, too" just doesn't wash with the post 9/11 mind-set.

Two hijackers came from the UAE, the Royal Families of the Emirates had direct ties with bin-Laden up to two months before 9/11. The money for the conspiracy was laundered through their banks. 11 hijackers' final stop before coming to the US to perform an act of war against us was through the UAE. The nuclear materials that found their way from the Pakistani scientist, A.Q. Khan, to Libya, Iran and North Korea passed through the Port of Dubai. They were one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan. Using Bush's rational on the war on terror, I could make a better case for a United States military invasion of the United Arab Emirates than handing the management of our ports over to them.

Don't you think that a foreign company, in this case one owned in its entirety by a foreign government (UAE), should have to have more than two years of a spotty record as our ally before we hand the management of the point of entry into our country over to them? Especially since their record before that was one of conspiring with our enemies.

[LynnTheDem]

1. The Taleban had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

Just thought I'd mention that.

PS; did ya know the vast majority of the rest of the world (including the Brits) opposed attacking Afghanistan?)

And the Taleban aren't actually gone. In fact, they're back, including in the government. And Afghanis are as bad or worse off than they ever were. And Afghanistan is turning into a total war just like Iraq.

So here's one DUer who very strongly disagreed/disagrees with bush's attack on Afghanistan.

[Benhurst]

4. That makes two of us. NT

[marmar]

5. 3 of us on Afghanistan...

At the time it might have seemed right, but as the layers of lies, nepharious motives and assorted bullshit have been revealed, it too has been exposed.

[madokie]

9. make that four. Isn't the presidency of the united states a diplomatic

position also? Where have there been any instance's of diplomacy. Telling someone they are going to do this or that is not.

[stevietheman]

15. Well, if al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, then the Taliban was indeed...

a culprit in the matter. However, if 9/11 was a federal government job, then, of course, Afghanistan was a mistake. I don't have enough information to decide either way.

[johnaries]

16. The Taleban didn't, but the Taliban did.

Oh, dang - it's you, Lynn! Sorry to be a smarta$$, but I just couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

Normally I love your posts, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The Taliban harbored bin Laden and tacitly supported him. Therefore, they are complicit.

Although you're right that they are making a comeback & Afghanistan is going to pot... actually, poppies...

but I think that's just more evidence of B*'s incompetence in "follow-up".

[LynnTheDem]

18. Hey, we're allowed to disagree on some things.

Taleban.

:P :D

:hug:


BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Analysis: Who are the Taleban?

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'

Taleban ("the Seekers")

CNN.com - Taleban to mark Afghan Hindus - May 22, 2001

[H2O]

2. We suspect blackmail

The Bush Admin has been using the UAEs ports for awhile since Yemen incident; They could easily say "Hey, you use our ports; if you dont give us control of your ports, then you cant use our ports anymore." Bye, bye goes our little idea of "taking over the Middle East.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Right, it's about Capitalists

[magellan]

6. It's about Free Trade

...otherwise known as the global corporate crime syndicate, that thinks it should be allowed to operate anywhere, anytime, without oversight..."for the betterment of all". :sarcasm:

[ThomWV]

7. Some Of Us Knew Afghanistan Was Wrong Too

On the day the Tali ban offered to turn Ossama over to us if we would provide any proof that he was responsible, and this would have been on about 9/12 ~ 9/15 or so, but Bush refused, I knew something was very wrong.

It was clear at that moment that he was going to start a war no matter what. What was not clear at that time - probably because we still had the lingering legacy of Clinton's logical reactions to world events - was how far Bush, our brain-dead child of evil, would go.

[China_cat]

10. I forget which one of the debates

it was in 2000 that Bush made it clear that WHEN he was elected we would be going to war. This had been planned for at least 10 years.

[madokie]

8. After all the misdeeds he and his minions have perpetrated on the world

not just the US, but the whole world. My question is why is this corrupt criminal still the preznit. Anything this misadministration does or says can be taken as a given to be a lie and not good for me, you or the USA, not to mention the rest of the world. 6 ports my ass, I keep reading a total of 21, so which is it. At this point in time it shouldn't matter, he needs to be run out of washington on a rail and let the survivors of NO tar and feather his sorry ass. How is it possible for this blivet to have done so much for the common person as to have an approval rating somewhere around 40%, how? And it all got past me without me noticing any of it, I don't think so. I may be dumb as a box of rocks but I don't buy any of what he spouts. Maybe i'm just paranoid, maybe. In my personal life I don't even give people like this preznit the time of day let alone a second glance. This impostor/monster is a failure, criminal and this is a failed misadministration.
rant off.

[NoMercy]

11. But much "talking points" against deal has come from Anti-Arab Neocon

operators with long track records of undermining Arabist interest in U.S. trade and foreign policy. Is this just coincidence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. It's about $$$$$, bogeymen, and xenophobia.

I'm not in favor of the port "deal" but I'm a socialist and internationalist and don't like politicians erecting bogeymen to advance their own ambitions.

[louis c]

13. This is why we lose elections

We have an issue served up on a silver platter, and we start to philosophize. just make Bushco. eat his words.

All our other ideals can only be implemented if we win. Abortion and Gay rights have no relation to tax cuts and security, but the other side knows how to win.

Once we realize that idealism can't be put into practice without a win, we'll all be better off.

[Telly Savalas]

14. Why we lose elections is that we don't do enough to attack

the basic conservative philosophy that's been guiding political discourse and action in the U.S. We sit on our asses and wait for shit like this to happen, juggle it around a bit, and then get distracted when the next flavor of the week issue comes up.

As you say, the GOP wins by bringing up anti-choice and anti-homosexual issues. What issues do we actively promote aside from reacting to things? It'd certainly be nice to hear a bit more about healthcare and labor issues. Might win a few votes too.

Regarding the UAE/ports issue, a couple of questions come to mind:

1. If anti-Arab bigotry isn't fuelling a lot of the outrage, then where did Congressional Republicans get this newfound desire to protect our national security? (Most DUers are certainly on the level about this, but when rightwingers who haven't made a peep about port security all of a sudden start screaming about it, it does raise a few eyebrows.)

2. I got two words for anybody who thinks that American companies care more about our national interest than UAE ones: Ken Lay.

[louis c]

17. Using the Bush rational on 9/11 attack

there is a better argument to be made in invading the UAE than for handing the pots over to them