AIG failure could respark racism in America

[RB TexLa]

The Dubai Ports World port operation contracts. AIG owns P&O Ports North America and with it the contract to operate major US ports. They acquired it when the world's best port operator wasn't quite "white" enough for racists and isolationist in the US to operate our ports. The logical buyer for P & O would be Dubai Ports World. So get ready for idiots screaming "Dem Aaaa-rabs gonna own Merican ports an soil, it's gonna end Merican sovereignty!"

[UndertheOcean]

1. You can be a little clearer

I have no idea what you are saying.

[GodlessBiker]

2. I don't think it's a bad idea to have Americans control American ports.

As opposed to outsourcing yet more jobs.

[smiley_glad_hands]

3. How is it racist to want American companies operating American ports? n/t

[marmar]

4. I doubt that most Americans have that depth of knowledge about who owns the Ports NA.....

..... and I really don't think that flame needs re-sparking.....It never went out!

[tazkcmo]

5. Epic Fail n/t

[Lex]

15. he's got a good record of that here (n/t)

[sandnsea]

6. It's not racism to want your ports secure

I don't believe any foreign company should own our ports. It's the height of stupidity. If you don't own your own ports, you aren't a country.

[RB TexLa]

7. The operator doesn't own the ports. That's what the racists wanted people to think.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Of course they don't own the ports.

They simply have total control of everything going in or out of them. They hire the security for the ports. They inspect the manifests. They know which ships Homeland Security or the FBI might want to take a second look at.

When barely one cargo container in 100 is actually inspected by US inspectors, you don't think having control of the controllers might be a good idea?

EDIT:
And it is not racism if the same restriction applies to Chinese, Germans, English, Japanese, Indians, or whoever.

[RB TexLa]

12. The company they bought that gave them the contracts to operate US ports was a british company

No one had said a word about them operating terminals here. Or any of the many foreign companies that did at the time and still do.

So the same restrictions don't apply.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7106

[knitter4democracy]

14. I didn't even know about that.

Where was that in the news before the Dubai deal? I had no idea that we'd given our ports over to non-American companies. That's a lot like having China make our military's uniforms and guns. Our security should be in our hands.

[RB TexLa]

16. Why? That's like a country with no auto industry say they should drive domestic cars no matter how

unsafe they are. The best port operators are not American companies. We have no one close. It would be taking an irresponsible step away from security to use American companies, not to mention loss of efficiency.

Maybe one day an American company can compete but there are none there yet.

[knitter4democracy]

17. We used to be good at it, though.

Where did those companies go? When did we turn over control of our ports to the British company?

[pampango]

19. Apparently many of us don't trust Mexicans (they work for low wages), Chinese (their products

are too cheap), Muslims (you just can't trust them), and Indians (they work for low wages). We seem to treat the British (among others - mostly white, English speaking, and with a similar standard of living), much differently.

The fact that the previous operator of the ports was a British company causes no great furor. It's one of the reasons that it was not even widely known - why use this fact to promote an American operator when you assume that people will laugh at you if you complain that the port operator is British.

It reminds me of the late 1980's when the Japanese stock market was booming and they were buying famous skyscrapers and Hollywood studios. There was much hue and cry that the Japanese were buying up our heritage and that something should be done to prevent this. At the same time British Petroleum (BP) was buying SOHIO an American oil company. There was little resistance to the British buying an oil company. Thank God, the Japanese did not try to buy SOHIO rather than a few skyscrapers. ;)

[smiley_glad_hands]

21. Britain is our natural ally not China or India. Poor analogy.

[pampango]

22. And why are they a "natural ally". Wouldn't have anything to do with Britain being a country that

is white, English-speaking and with a similar standard of living, would it?

Are those the only types of foreigners whom we can trust?

[Romulox]

25. Please consult a history book, Professor.

:eyes:

[pampango]

31. I did. Oh, that's the England that you are all talking about!

I remember reading about it when I was a kid. :)

Seriously, I hope that we have more than one "natural ally" in the world. I admire Great Britain, but there are many other fine democratic and peaceful countries in the world. We should trust more countries and their people than just the one we were tied to until 232 years ago.

[Romulox]

32. Um, no. It is our SHARED HISTORY you're trying to ignore.

"Seriously, I hope that we have more than one "natural ally" in the world."

Allies join together based on shared interests and values. The US doesn't share too many interests or values with Dubai. :hi:

[pampango]

37. Perhaps not with Dubai, but we do share interests and values with many countries

other than England.

My belief is that we should consider all countries that are reasonable democratic and reasonably peaceful as our "natural allies". Canada seems to be even more of a natural ally than England. We share a common language (well except for Quebec), a common legal system (from England) and a very similar set of values, in addition to a long, peaceful common border.

I would also argue that we have much in common with Australia (kind of like a distant Canada), Japan (peaceful and democratic, though they do speak a different language), France, Germany and other Western European countries (for the same reason as Japan).

I realize that there are many who might agree that Canada is a "natural ally" for the reasons you state. Some might include Australia, though others might consider its distance from us to be too great (though England is not that close either). Perhaps some would not include Japan and Western Europe as our natural allies, because they are too different in terms of language and/or race/culture, though one could argue that they share almost all of our interests and values.

It is interesting to me that some can "trust" England and that's it. Some include Canada in their "trust" circle. Others may include Australia, Japan, Western Europe, etc. Everyone draws the "trust" line in the sand in a different place and probably for different reasons.

[Romulox]

41. Your free market philosophy is utterly discredited by this week's events; give it up. nt

[pampango]

43. How did you determine that trusting other countries and people who share our interests and values

is restricted to those who believe in a free market philosophy? I would expect that committed socialists, communists, libertarians, etc. would also trust those people who share their values and interests.

One can believe in a regulated marketplace and international trading system and still trust people in other countries who share our values. You seem to be saying that we can only trust Americans (and maybe a few British). I think we agree that "this week's events" are the fault of Bush and the RW's efforts to cripple regulatory agencies under the guise of "free markets". I trust you are not blaming foreigners for the debacle that Bush and his cohorts have brought on our economy. (We probably share more interests and values with many citizens in the countries I mentioned than with do with Bush and his ideological companions.)

[smiley_glad_hands]

26. No, they founded the colony that our country and laws are based on.

Don't be daft.

[Romulox]

28. Her only mission here is to shill. Facts mean nothing whatsoever to her. nt

[pampango]

30. Then Canada and Australia are also our natural allies? I believe they are.

They were founded by Britain, too. Their laws are also based on English law.

My guess would be that you do not view India, Jamaica and many other countries that have evolved from British colonies as our "natural allies", even though they, too, are democracies with legal systems based on English law.

Are the rest of Western Europe and Japan not our "natural allies" just because they do not speak English and have legal systems which, though presumably equally effective, are not based on English law? They have a similar standard of living to ours and are democratic and peaceful. I don't see why they shouldn't be our "natural allies" as well. In fact, I don't see why we can't treat any country that is reasonably democratic and peaceful as our "natural ally" regardless of their colonial history and the heritage of their legal system.

[Romulox]

35. Your formulation would rule out Dubai. It isn't a democracy.

"In fact, I don't see why we can't treat any country that is reasonably democratic and peaceful as our "natural ally" regardless of their colonial history and the heritage of their legal system."

[pampango]

38. Good point. But in a larger view my "formulation" would include many more countries as "allies"

than just England. And if we could trust England to operate our ports, we could trust these other countries as well.

Included in my list of "reasonably democratic and peaceful " countries would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, South Korea, all of Western Europe and most of Eastern Europe, Taiwan, South Africa (and many other African countries), the Philippines (and much of East Asia), Turkey, most of Central and South American, including Mexico and Venezuela, and most of the Caribbean countries. Most of these countries are not predominantly white, Christian and do not speak English as their primary language, but they share a "reasonably democratic and peaceful" culture and as such should be considered to be "natural allies".

[Romulox]

40. Goalposts: moved. nt

[Dorian Gray]

29. India

is our ally....

[smiley_glad_hands]

20. Britain is our natural ally not Dubai.

[sandnsea]

9. Still promoting globalism

Some people just will not learn.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. You defend Dubai?

They have a human rights record that should exclude them from even basic relations with this nation. Dubai is a cesspool of prejudice.
In July of this year, Dubai arrested 17 foreigners for being gay. I'm gay. So you say I should support handing our ports over to bigots or I'm a bigot?
Why do you support handing American interests over to a backward nation that violates the human rights not just of its own subjects, but of visitors?

[Junkdrawer]

11. Don't think you're going to sell that here....

Nope. Not going to happen.

Nice try, though.

[knitter4democracy]

13. So, I'm racist for not wanting another country to run our ports?

Especially a country with some shady ties to our known enemies? Ummmm . . . no.

I hadn't known that a British company operated our major ports before the Dubai company, and I was pissed enough about that. We should be running our own ports--that's not something that should be sent overseas. I don't care what color their skin is, I don't care what country they're from, I only care that our ports should be run by us.

[LanternWaste]

18. I think the Dubai Ports..

I think the Dubai Ports contract being rescinded was less racism and more simply nationalism.

[Marrah_G]

23. It is not racist to stop a country from running our ports

Especially a country KNOWN to support groups that would like to hit us again.

This is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on DU.

Do you have any clue what Dubai is all about? And "we" are the bigots??????????

Or are you too busy racing around looking for things that you can scream "racism" about? Are there not enough legitimate racist things to be outraged about?

[RB TexLa]

24. There has been no outrage over a company with government ownership

from Singapore operating ports in the US.

[Romulox]

27. Cute how rightwing trolls can disrupt this board by crying "racism!" to prop up laissez faire

capitalism, huh?

Does anybody think RGBolen is "progessive" about anything? Cause he uses these boards to shill for big business nearly exclusively.

[Bluebear]

39. You asked a question....

....NO. :)

[BlooInBloo]

33. I dunno if you follow the news much, but we have a black candidate running for President....

Racism is about as sparked as it's gonna get.

[DS1]

34. Yeah. We need to outsource even MORE jobs

You're an idiot, please just stop posting your drivel

[SweetieD]

36. This isn't racist. nt

[ironflange]

42. Well, I gotta hand it to you

That argument is probably the best combination of tenuous and obtuse I've ever seen.