Anti-Arab hostility surfaces over port buyout (from The Progressive)

[Wordie]

This article presents a different view.

Anti-Arab hostility surfaces over port buyout
By Amitabh Pal
February 21, 2006

...The takeover of the British Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates government enterprise, has inspired strong reaction that, sadly, has sometimes had a tinge of anti-Arab sentiment.

“How are they going to safeguard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" asked Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. The outrage seems to be bipartisan. Democratic Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Menendez are co-sponsoring legislation that will bar the control of port operations by foreign governments if President Bush doesn’t stop by March 2 Dubai Ports World from completing its takeover.

Now, I’m not naïve. The United Arab Emirates served as a financial transfer point for the operation. (This is at least partly due to the fact that UAE has become a major money laundering center due to lax oversight.) But Hamburg was a major plotting center for the terrorists, too. Can anyone imagine a similar outcry if a German state-owned firm had acquired Peninsular and Oriental? “To call the United Arab Emirates a country ‘tied to 9/11’ by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time),” writes Time magazine.

...But its government is not particularly known for its zeal in exporting Islamic fundamentalism. Nor is it riddled with Al Qaeda financiers, unlike say, Saudi Arabia. In fact, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a quasi-governmental organization, does not have the United Arab Emirates in its list of “countries of particular concern”—nations that suppress religious freedoms. (Key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia are either countries of concern or on a watch list.)

http://progressive.org/mag_apb022106

[AlamoDemoc]

1. let truth be known...n/t

[Wordie]

3. Dubai was one of first to cooperate w/US Customs Port screening...

More from the article:

The reaction of some to the takeover is unwarranted. Dubai Ports “is not exactly a shadow organization for Al Qaeda," says Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai was one of the first places in the Middle East to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative—an effort that puts U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process for U.S.-bound cargo, as Time magazine reports.

I'm not even certain if the contract is for security, per se, as many people seem to be saying. And some of the reported connections to Osama bin Laden occurred before 9/11, when he was still considered by many in the arab world as a hero because of his efforts to drive the Russians out of Afganistan (for which we supported him, btw). I'm not certain it's reasonable to blame the UAE for this connection to ObL, when we had one too. And as far as going bonkers because somebody discovered that ObL saw a dentist in the UAE, in July of 2001, is just plain silly.

9/11 was the dividing line. It's actions and connections after 9/11 which ought to be relevant. And this suggests the UAE has been cooperating with the US.

I personally have not really decided this for myself one way or the other, but I do think that we should gather as much (accurate and relevant) info as possible before coming to a conclusion.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Let me answer one of your questions, and comment on one point.

1. "I'm not even certain if the contract is for security, per se, as many people seem to be saying." - No, the contract was for container-era "stevedoring" services. See my post .

2. You referred to Steve Flynn. The Coast Guard is small - and the "Port Security-HazMat" community within the Coast Guard is smaller still. We worked in the same "shop" a few years apart - with some of the same civil servants -- and Steve followed me sequentially through about three assignments.

3. You also said "It's actions and connections after 9/11 which ought to be relevant. And this suggests the UAE has been cooperating with the US." Dubai came into a lot of money real fast, is a major seaport-transshipping port, banking center, and "deal doing" center.

[FormerRepublican]

6. Yes, let's let the truth be known (and it's more than this article lets on

(Note that this is in 2004!)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg00237.html
http://www.viewzone.com/911.html
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/1_30.htm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,178227,00.html
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/divrisk.html

In addition, there's something a little odd in the power succession recently:

First, the ruler - Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan - dies Nov 2, 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6390296

Then, the ruler - Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum - dies under mysterious circumstances in Australia April 1, 2006.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/193319

He is replaced by his brother - Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum - who just happens to be the man with the tidy relationship with Bin Laden:

"After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999)."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-531

Now the question is - did the pal of Bin Laden recently put the hit on his brother to assume the rule of the UAE, at conveniently the same time Bush was busy approving the sale of our ports to the UAE state run company?

The more I dig into this, the more questions there are!

[Wordie]

8. Please remember that bin Laden was considered a hero in Afganistan...

and in the arab world, for driving out the Soviet Union. And he came from a wealthy Saudi family, and so would have, in that role, traveled in the same circles, for social reasons, not terrorism.

I'll say it again: 9/11 was a dividing line. I think we may be making a mistake in viewing what happened before that without considering how much has changed since then. It's unreasonable to expect that the rulers in the UAE could have predicted that ObL would have attacked the US on 9/11. I've read things that certainly suggests that UAE has cooperated with the US in anti-terrorist operations since, and even before, 9/11. After all, WE, the US, also "collaborated" with bin Laden in the war in Afganistan, and gave him money and weapons. His later actions are what changed things.

And unless you have some specific info tying the new ruler to his brother's death, that appears to me to be just idle speculation.

[FormerRepublican]

11. How about this post 9/11 activity?

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.
The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.

Once here, it's easy to blend in to what has become a cosmopolitan crowd.

The Emirates is home to an estimated 4 million people, and nearly 75% of them are foreigners. In Dubai, expatriates of all nationalities are catered to, from concerts by top Western musicians to cricket and rugby matches to a German-styled Oktoberfest."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm

And from 2004:

"An al Qaeda operative believed to have been close to Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was flown home to Pakistan after he was arrested in Dubai, intelligence sources said.

Qari Saifullah Akhtar was arrested on Friday by the United Arab Emirates at Pakistan's request, according to the sources, and his capture may help in the hunt for the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/pakistan.arrest/

[Wordie]

13. OK, but there's more to those articles:

From the USA Today article:

While the Emirates has taken concrete steps to fight terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001 — including making high-profile arrests, passing an anti-money laundering law, and imposing close monitoring procedures on charity organizations — the characteristics that make it an ideal place for legitimate business also attract militants and others with suspect motives.

In August, Pakistani Qari Saifullah Akhtar, suspected of training thousands of al-Qaeda fighters for combat, was arrested in the Emirates and turned over to officials in his homeland, authorities in Pakistan announced.

Emirates authorities have refused to comment on Akhtar's arrest. They were similarly tightlipped in 2002, when the United States announced the arrest of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.

It was a month before Emirates officials confirmed al-Nashiri had been arrested here. Then they said he had been planning to attack "vital economic targets" in the Emirates that were likely to inflict "the highest possible casualties among nationals and foreigners."

And from the CNN article:

Qari Saifullah Akhtar was arrested on Friday by the United Arab Emirates at Pakistan's request, according to the sources, and his capture may help in the hunt for the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

It looks to me as if the UAE is cooperating in anti-terrorism efforts. Perhaps we in the US don't realize this because they are trying to keep a low profile regarding those efforts.

[FormerRepublican]

20. Even given the fact that the UAE is acting in certain circumstances...

...to curtail terrorist activity, why would you feel this qualifies them as entities that should run US ports? Why would you feel that objections to giving away management in our ports is somehow based in some kind of bias? Why would you feel that policies that have given haven to terrorists should not be considered in this, despite intermittent curtailment actions?

We have no idea how extensive terrorist organizational activity is in UAE, nor can we know what information might flow from our ports - the most vulnerable in American infrastructure - to terrorists who would like to use that vulnerability to attack us. We do know that terrorists have used the UAE in the past as a base of operations and a conduit for financing - why would we automatically assume this is no longer the case simply because the government has intermittently taken action against terrorists when pressed by foreign governments?

Some of the arguments I see seem to imply that we should take NO national security actions at all, despite 9/11 and a multitude of other attacks. IMO, that's simpy stupid. Are we so blind to our own value that we feel our own country doesn't deserve any protection from violence?

And we underestimate the value and loyalty most Americans feel toward our country that citizens of other countries often do not feel...

[Wordie]

23. I think that what I'm arguing is more for taking a longer look at this...

than I am saying that I'm taking a definitive stance. I think we should pause, take a deep breath, and take some additional time to review the issue, before assuming anything that we read is the last word. I don't have access to the sort of info I would need to really understand all this, and I really don't think anyone else, here at DU at least, may either. It is a team of high-level national security experts who reviewed and approved the deal. It seems to me that they would of course have asked the questions that you are, and they clearly were satisfied with the answers, having much more info than you and I, clearly. And keep in mind that I generally don't trusts those guys. But what info do they have that we don't, I wonder. The Bush administration, since 9/11, if anything has over done it, it seems to me, regarding issues of national security. So if they are saying that the UAE would be OK, then I have to ask if a group who has been so consistently over-doing the response to terrorism, would be likely to take the issue lightly.

There's lots of info floating around, but I'm not certain how much we can trust it. Information can be twisted for a whole variety of reasons, and some of the the things I've read as reasons not to do this deal really worry me, as they seem so inflammatory, but when you look closer, really don't seem to have a lot of meat to them. I mean, an ObL dental appointment, before 9/11??? It would have been good if they could have caught ObL then, but I kinda don't see how that means that a UAE-owned company itself poses a threat. Sheesh. Remember that we had terrorists (even some on a watch list) doing things here, too, before 9/11.

Could it be that some of the liberal policies the UAE work like some of our own? When a country grants its citizens liberties, there is more of a danger of someone taking advantage. Fighting terrorism is much more difficult in a country with liberal policies; repressive govenments probably find it very easy to combat terrorism, as they have such control over the lives of their citizens. But would a repressive government in the UAE really be what we would want? It doesn't seem to me that we should penalize an arab government for being too liberal!

Yet, as I've been saying, I do think that if there is any good issue here, it might be that of restricting to American ownership all our critical infrastructure functions. In that, we probably agree.

I guess there are really several issues to this, for me. I don't want to see a fairly liberal arab country, one that seems to have been cooperating in the efforts to combat terrorism, to in effect get a slap in the face from our government. It seems to me that we should be doing everything possible to support such a government, not trashing them.

I hardly think that security is a non-issue. I'm just arguing for more info, before we over-react.

[FormerRepublican]

30. This is as much of a lack of trust for the Bush Administration as it is...

...a lack of trust of the UAE. I think we do have to have some sympathy with Americans in the wake of 9/11, too. I think people have the right to be nervous when they've been attacked, and they have the right to question matters related to their security. That's just normal human behavior - the survival instinct is one of the most powerful human drives we have.

That's another part of this whole deal that I don't like - the feeling that it's being rammed down our throats whether we like it or not. The implication that we're not allowed to think it over and have a choice regarding whether it's in our best interests or not.

And if the UAE scares us in relation to control of our ports, what's wrong with saying "no" to the deal? Don't we have the right to feel comfortable and secure in our country to help dispel some of the anxiety after 9/11? Why is this only about what the UAE wants?

The UAE's timing sucks!

[Wordie]

37. The UAE did not attack us on 9/11.

Bringing 9/11 into the argument is much like the justifications for going to war in Iraq, because we were attacked on 9/11 (not by Iraq).

And it only feels like it's being rammed down our throats because we found out about it at the last minute. I haven't read the specifics, but I know enough about contracting to be able to confidently state that this was surely in the works for a long time. A RFP would have been prepared and then issued. There would have been a time for companies to review the RFP and then submit bids for the contract (as I mentioned before, apparently there were only two bids, both from foreign companies). The bids would have then undergone a highly detailed review, probably at a multitude of levels. For a project of this size and importance, this process likely took several months, at the very least. This just wasn't a last minute sort of thing.

This is hardly just about what the UAE wants. They responded in good faith to an RFP for which they were eligible to bid. This has nothing to do with timing on the part of the UAE.

Your statements seem to be very emotionally-based, FormerRepublican. And while I understand and sympathize with security concerns, it does appear that you are conflating the UAE with "the terrorists." And that's just not right.

[ptolle]

39. sirota article DU homepage

There's a good article by David Sirota on the DU homepage which discusses this deal from the perspective of the neocon and PNACers "free trade" obsession/smokescreen.I'm waiting for someone to come out with a detailed accounting of the money trail, and an explanation of who/where benefits the most from this proposal. I'd be pretty sure you'll find a chimperor crony somewhere along the way with their wallet already open.

[Hatalles]

2. This highlights the need for us to be consistent...

... and demand that no foreign entities should be in charge of our ports. Americans should be in charge of our own security. My only concern is that some on the left are inadvertently using Islamophobia as a lever to dislodge Bush's basis and potentially win some of them over. We can still criticize Bush, however, we need to focus on the larger problem without sinking to the right-wing's xenophobic lows and perpetuating those ugly sentiments -- our security should not be outsourced to ANY OTHER nation.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. That's a stretch

Please see my post .

Dubai Ports World would NOT be providing Port Security service. That is the job of the Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs.

Dubai Ports World would be providing PORT INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES such as stevedoring, chandlering, manifesting, interfacing with officials, etc.

Again, please Please see my post .

Why do I object?

1. It does make the jobs of "Port Security", drug enforcement, and customs enforcement all harder - this would be the case with any foreign ownership of transportation infrastructure. This has nothing to do with race, religion, creed, national origin. It is no secret that ships that had stopped in countries with a "drug" problem were watched much more closely then ships from other countries.

2. The "longshoring" jobs would stay in the US, the only thing the US economy would lose would be "profit" --- I emotionally drew my line when:

* IBM sold its Personal Computer Business to Lenovo and its disk drive business to Hitachi;

* United Air Lines and USAir bought AirBus jets instead of Boeing jets.

* GM appeared to surrender hybrids to Japan

There comes a time when you have to say "Enough is enough" - See Paul Krugman, International Economics: Theory and Policy, and The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century. While I am not a protectionist - I don't want to see us in a Bush "race to the bottom" as we "Wal-Martize" our nation and export our jobs to Bush - Halliburton - Carlyle friends.

[Wordie]

7. We may be more in agreement than not, Coastie.

I'm trying to present some alternative information regarding the UAE. I don't think the UAE necessarily is a risk for some of the reasons I see frequently stated here at DU. But I'm still not sure exactly where I stand on this deal.

Although I didn't, for some reason, mention it in this particular post, I've been saying how it seems to me that what we should be looking at is whether we should let any contract for critical infrastructure functions to a foreign company (and whether the contract itself has to do with security or not, the ports in general I would consider to be critical infrastructure). Your post takes things a step further, but it sounds like you are asking the same question (#1) as I am. Have I got that right?

And I don't consider myself "protectionist" either, just pragmatic.

[eridani]

44. Not a problem that its current head of state--

--happens to be a falcon hunting partner of bin Laden? Not in my book.

[OneBlueSky]

9. the issue is why is ANY foreign power controlling US ports? . . .

given the nature of the enterprise and the state of the world today, wouldn't it be a good idea if we controlled our own ports? . . .

and why is it that, until this latest dust-up, 99.99% of Americans had no idea that we DON'T control our own ports? . . .

that's the issue here . . .

[Wordie]

10. Yes...that may be the more relevant question.

I didn't know that before either. I imagine that most of us didn't. The curious thing is that only two companies vied for this contract, and both were foreign (I believe the other was Chinese? Not certain on this). This seems to suggest that the US no longer has companies that are capable of doing this sort of business.

Now that is scary.

[montana500]

12. ahh here we go. The "thoughtful liberal act" once again gets in the way...

...of good politics in an important election year. We need to save this stuff for when we actually run something.

[Telly Savalas]

18. Throwing more logs on the fire of racism and paranoia

only helps reinforces the distorted worldview that keeps getting right-wing screwballs elected. That's bad politics.

[Wordie]

27. An excellent and insightful observation. Thanks for that, Telly. eom

[BlueStateGirl]

32. wrong spot n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

14. Bush is the one who calls them "Islamic Extremists" evey day!

[Telly Savalas]

19. So we should keep repeating his talking point?

[Hubert Flottz]

22. You do what ever floats your boat!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=487949&mesg_id=493570

I was talking about Bush's Flip Flopping on his war on Terra! I don't know what you're talking about and really don't care!

[QC]

15. Ah, another "progressive" spreading Rove's talking points for him.

How very, um, unusual.

[Wordie]

26. Sheesh...how much do you think YOU really know about this issue.

It's not a black and white thing, as far as I can see, and far more complicated than any talking points can encompass.

So what do you think about the actual issues?

Do you mean to be dismissive of progressives in general? Because your post could be read in that manner, you know.

[QC]

29. "Do you mean to be dismissive of progressives in general?"

Yes, you have unmasked me. I am actually a Republican plant who has spent nearly five years undercover at DU just so I could now "be dismissive of progressives in general." :eyes:

Geez, if people disagree with outsourcing port management, they are racists. If they object to your cheap, frivolous accusations of racism, they are "dismissive of progressives in general." Do you know any other tricks, or do you just do this same one over and over?

My point, of course, is that there is always a "sensible liberal" who comes along to defend the GOP. It gets old.

[Wordie]

33. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Either I agree with you, and (presumably) go along with attempts to paint the UAE as a hotbed of international terrorism, or else I am defending the GOP. (I have to guess here a little bit, as you yourself have said relatively little about either the OP, or the UAE contract itself.)

LOL...you're the one who made dissmissive comments about progressives, not me. And why such a fervored attack on me, a person you don't even know? Where is that coming from?

You know nothing of me, yet you feel justified in making snarky comments implying I am on Rove's side on this issue, all the while offering very little of your own to the debate. And if you had actually read this thread, you'll find I long ago stated that I'm actually not comfortable at all with the letting of contracts for critical infrastructure to foreign entities. I haven't yet come to a complete decision on the issue, because I need more information in order to evaluate it properly. But when I question it, I mean all foreign entities, and don't think relatively liberal middle eastern ones should be singled out for different treatment. As many news reports have now established, many foreign companies have similar contracts for our ports. Are you objecting to contracts with Britain or Germany, I wonder?

[QC]

35. If you think that post was a "fervored attack," then perhaps

political discussion is too rough for you. Have you considered taking up something more genteel? Maybe china painting? Tatting?

As I said, my point was that whenever the Republicans start turning on Bush, some "sensible liberal" always intervenes. Bush has met his Waterloo on this, and we don't need to be defending him.

And, of course, I am a bit tired of the willingness of so many to make frivolous, kneejerk accusations of racism, or question people's authenticity as progressives, simply because they disagree on this issue. There's been an epidemic of it here since this story broke, and it's gotten old.

[Wordie]

36. Yep, anyone who accuses me of "defending the GOP" is making a fervored

attack in my book. Them's fightin' words. I doubt many at DU would take them much differently. You are apparently unaware of what you are saying.

You'll realize, if you read back over this thread, that you personally were accused of nothing. I merely posted an article with which you disagree.

Perhaps you need additional time to review the OP and the thread more carefully...

[QC]

38. Who accused you of anything?

I was referring to the article posted in the original post. Never said anything about you.

[Wordie]

42. Quote: "If they object to your cheap, frivolous accusations of racism...

they are "dismissive of progressives in general." Do you know any other tricks, or do you just do this same one over and over?

My point, of course, is that there is always a "sensible liberal" who comes along to defend the GOP. It gets old."

It looks like you need not only to review the OP and thread, but what you yourself wrote, as well! :rofl:

Enough of this...it's pointless.

[QC]

46. Declare victory and run away, eh?

Looks like you do know at least one other trick.

If you ever get tired of these puerile games and actually want to discuss something in good faith, I hope you'll let me know. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's about "IslamoFascism" aka racism and xenophobia.

It's rather dismaying to see "liberals" falling for it complete with flagwaving and fearmongering.

[The Stranger]

17. Kicked and recommended.

It is about fucking time.

[mondo joe]

21. Rove hit the liberal G-Spot by crying RACISM.

And now liberals are salivating all over themselves like Pavlovian dogs.

At least some are.

[Wordie]

25. Nice try, but I started saying these things long before any comments by

Rove were publicized. And what do you think about the actual issues raised in the article, btw?

And do you really mean to be so dismissive of liberals??? What do you consider yourself?

[mondo joe]

40. Right - Rove knows your G spot.

I'm not dismissive of liberals - but I am willing to face up to who we are.

I do it as an American (even though repubs say it means I hate America) and I do it here (even though you say I'm being dismissive).

[Wordie]

48. LOL...Rove engineered a "terra" campaign, about which I and other DUers

have been loudly complaining, and trying to expose as nonsense, for a very long time, but the moment Rove shifts gears to supporting an arab deal, you suddenly turn right around and apparently fall for the "terra" stuff, and yet have the illogical gall to call me, who has been consistent in recognizing that the "terra" thing has in many cases been only a strategy of RW fear-mongering, as under the influence of Rove???

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

52. Funny - I thought progressives were saying the Iraq war was a terrorist

breeding ground by fueling anti American frustration.

Now you're saying terrorism is merely a Rove scam and doesn't exist?

Maybe you think Rove invented a need for national security - but I was aware of the need for it long ago. So were a lot of Americans.

Acknowledging a need for reasonable national security and the existence of terrorism is not the same thing as the irrational paranoia Rove fuels I'm sorry you've conflated the two.

[QC]

49. Joe, it looks like you and I are being "dismissive."

Why are we so gosh darn mean? Why don't we have the common decency to run our opinions by wordie first to make sure that they are acceptable?

[mondo joe]

53. Yes - just like that dismissive Bill Clinton who thought bin Laden was a

threat. And just like most other Americans who recognize that there are threats.

It's interesting how so many posts on DU are about how American policy breeds anti Americanism, and how our occupation of Iraq is creating terrorist, but when it comes to safety matters there's not a soul on earth who wishes America any harm.

[QC]

54. Funny how that works, isn't it? n/t

[mondo joe]

55. Hehehe. "We're making the world hate us - but they wouldn't dream of

harming a hair on our heads."

[Rex]

24. Anti-Arab hostility

Exactly what the BFEE wants...make it easier to handle war with Iran.

[mondo joe]

41. My Arab American spouse is having Anti Arab hostility?

It's going to be hard to break it to him - he thinks he's just made a thoughtful determination based on safety interests.

[Rex]

56. I dunno, is he?

My point was that this is just fear and paranoia spead by Rove. Does your husband live in the ME or the UAE region?

[JCMach1]

43. Exactly

The amount of venom I have seen on DU makes it seem more like FR the past week.

[mondo joe]

47. Really? Try saying you're a gay man in the UAE if you want to put this

in perspective as far as venom goes.

[Clarkie1]

28. Americans should be running all American ports.

And Democrats should introduce legislation to make that the law of the land.

[Katherine Brengle]

45. exactly--we need the jobs, if nothing else. n/t

[Wordie]

50. Actually the jobs (and union contracts) will remain the same under the UAE

contract.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

31. Anglo, Aryan, Arab or space Alien....NO foreign control of US ports.

Period. That's my opinion on this issue.

[Skittles]

34. I trust bush inc less than I trust UAE

how about that being reason enough to distrust this decision?

[Dr Fate]

51. LOL! LOL! I am stealing that one for sure! LOL! n/t

n/t