Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I must say this one is sort of funny. On one hand, in the picture of the world that Bush and his friends have been pushing "Fear the a-rabs, fight them over there" this deal sounds like total insanity. On the other, there's no special reason that these owners would be any worse than any other. It is sort of funny to watch Bush being beaten up by the stick he created. Using his veto for the first time to ensure that this deal goes through would be hysterical to watch.

I guess the left - in US terms - could coherently argue that security sensitive installations should be managed by US based corporations.

I'll point out that the article you link to has nothing to do with racism. If you're going to attack Kos do it over on dKos, not here.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:24:51 AM EST
Yeah, it has more to do with a lot of Americans wanting to maintain national control over their infrastructure. Can't blame them.

It's called sovereignty, something I thought the Right loved above all.

asdf, good try but miss. The USian Left has its own periodic bouts of madness but that's not one of them.
by Francois in Paris on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 11:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that this is about security.  While the British are unquestioned allies of the US, the UAE is a scary place.  Consider these facts:

  • The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

  • According to George Tenet, the former Director of the CIA, members of the UAE royal family visited Osama Bin Laden in February 1999 (before 9/11), and their presence deterred an American attack on Bin Laden's compound.

  • Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE.

  • According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

  • After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

  • The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

  • According to the CIA, the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries.

Why would anyone what them to be running part of the national infrastructure?

by corncam on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What we are seeing is a knee-jerk reaction from America's left. It is okay to be racist or xenophobic if you can give Bush the finger at the same time. The American left needs to look at its priorities, and to listen to Jimmy Carter once in a while. asdf is perfectly right to use Kos as an example; he is an opinion maker and not infallible.

Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
Czeslaw Milosz
by Chris Kulczycki on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 11:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just want to make clear that you are saying that the American left thinks it's ok to be racist if it means opposting Bush.

Because that seems like a very "knee-jerk" reaction to the American left itself...  If we are going to allow that there might be some nuance in Bush's decisionmaking, I hope we can allow the same for the "American left."

I still don't see why "race" has to be a factor in opposing the selling of our ports to a firm in country that used to support the Taliban, which we are supposedly in need of protection from.  We are talking about the privatizing of security and questioning political alliances.

If the hijackers had been British, do you think we'd have be fine with the British running our ports?  9I was shocked to learn any foreign entity was running them, btw!) After Katrina, do we trust the Administration to run entrust our security to the most qualified people or to those whom they owe favors?  There are a lot of factors.  Race is only one of them.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't see why "race" has to be a factor in opposing the selling of our ports to a firm in country that used to support the Taliban, which we are supposedly in need of protection from.

Well, why? Exactly because it takes UAE as a monolythic unit. Check soj's post at dKos, he takes the claims apart. (To list the errors in the above: the ports aren't sold only their management, the firm and country aren't the same, that country supported the Taleban before 9/11 but was a Bush ally afterwards, and the Dubai sheikh was replaced since.)

We are talking about the privatizing of security

It is part of the problem that Kossacks are talking about privatizing security, while in this case security (and port ownership) remains in US federal hands.

If the hijackers had been British

Now THAT's a racist approach.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No it isn't!!

I'm "American" but that's not my race!!!!

Unless all you folks who dislike -America- are racists!

Are you?!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is seriously pissing me off.

Taking an ET break for a while.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please don't! I'd rather say sorry and shut up than drive you away.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 04:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, OK, then let's call it semi-racist or just collectivist. Would the participaton of a US mercenary in a coup attempt turn American companies a security risk for that African state?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 04:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series