The fact that your enemy agrees with you does not always mean

[Plaid Adder]

that you're wrong. Usually, but not always.

You do not have to be a racist to think that it is a bad idea to turn over the operation of our ports--a widely advertised and still apparently uncorrected security vulnerability--to a corporation which is owned by the government of a state that actually does have strong ties to international terrorism. And indeed, one reason that this is a bad idea is precisely the fact that after 35 years of Reagan-inspired and Bush-accelerated 'deregulation,' whatever corporation gets this contract will have a much bigger say in what does and does not get into this country than the U.S. government does.

I'll tell you what is racist--intentionally confusing the country about the differences between being a Muslim, being an Arab, and being a terrorist just so you will be able to convince your citizens to go to war against a country that hasn't attacked them.

Yeah, a lot of people will oppose the port sale because for the wrong reasons. That does not mean it's the wrong position. If the only indicator you use to determine what position to take is whether the Freepers are for or against, you're letting them control your politics, and if you don't mind my saying so, that's just batshit crazy.

Say it yea or say it nay but do it based on whether you think it's a good idea or not, not based on your desire to never be found on the same side of an issue as the people across the way. As they are no doubt saying about us over there at this very moment, even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Correct as usual, Plaid Adder

Thanks for the commentary.

[jasmeel]

2. the racism card is always pulled by the repugs when it effects

something they want to do. The rest of the time they could give a shit about race inequality.

[Jamnt]

3. Flawless logic...if only

the republican ostriches could get their collective heads out of the sand...:hide:

[louis c]

4. My sentiments, exactly

I first heard about this deal from Michael Savage. I believe Mr. savage is a raving lunatic. but the minute I heard about this, checked its authenticity, and thought about it, I knew we had a winner.

First off, I'm a big Union guy, the ports should be run by US government with strict oversight and union contracts.

I don't like the idea that the British control our ports, either. I never knew. It was a bad idea even if it was Clinton. After all, the free trade agreements were bad, even if they were Clinton ideas.

However, Bush has gone from bad to worse. If the British controlling our ports is a bad idea, Dubai is worse. If Clinton's trade deals were bad, Bush's are worse. If clinton's handling of boarder security was bad, Bush's is worse.

At least we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget under Clinton. Bush has given us nothing but disaster.

[Wordie]

12. The union issue may not be accurate, louis c...please read this:

Arab Port Deal Distorted for Political Gain
by William Hughes Monday, Feb. 20, 2006 at 9:43 AM
[e-mail]

...At a silly press conference, on Feb. 18, 2006, held at a waterfront site, next to blocks of ultra-luxurious condos, O’Malley, a Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland, ranted away to the TV cameras, about how it is “outrageous and irresponsible to turn over a port to any foreign government.” One of his political cronies, the pro-Iraqi War congressman, Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD), was also present. According to the Baltimore Sun, O’Malley accused the UAE of being a “key transfer point for nuclear components on their way to North Korea, Libya and Iran.” (1) To his credit, O’Malley didn’t blast the UAE for hiding Osama bin Laden, preparing to launch WMD at the U.S., or causing the Baltimore Ravens' NFL team to miserably flop again last year.

Here's the crux of the problem: O’Malley doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about! Period! He also made a reference to the War of 1812-1814, and how the city had successfully defended itself against the British invasion and that somehow this proposed contract fits into that historic happening. That, too, is pure baloney! What O’Malley didn’t reveal at the press conference was that the organization presently in charge of much of the stevedoring operations in Baltimore is - a British-based, privately owned outfit - Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, (P&O). It has been supervising “container cargo operations at the publicly owned Seagirt and Dundalk marine terminals” for the last few years. (1) This essential fact didn’t seem to bother O’Malley’s fragile psyche. Now, however, since, the P&O has recently been purchased by Dubai Ports World for $6.8 billion, he has chosen to go over the proverbial edge and use the incident to make a cheap political point or two. I hope the voters will see though this ploy.

The critical point is that Dubai Ports World won't be running the port of Baltimore, or any other U.S. port for that matter. What it would be doing, as ex-Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD), a respected expert on Maritime matters, explained in a Feb. 18th letter, to the “Baltimore Sun,” is hiring the longshoremen to load and unload the cargo from the vessels. The Maryland Port Authority, an agency of the state, she underscored, would continue to “run the port of Baltimore’s public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general.” Bentley added that this transaction only means that the “UAE’s Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle cargo coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of those ports.” (2)

It is also important to emphasize that the vast majority of the cargo handling in the six U.S. ports mentioned above is done by union labor, who are locally based workers. They are card carrying members of the International Longshorman's Association (AFL-CIO), which is headquartered in New York City. This is the same union, (Local 829 ILA), that this writer belonged to, in Baltimore, back in the late 1950s. The idea that the longshoremen will somehow not be able to do the same kind of highly professional stevedoring work for Dubai, which they did for the P&O company, and other stevedoring companies before them, just doesn't fly. For the ILA member, it will be just another day's work on the docks, irrespective of who's doing the hiring.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/1724847.php

And I realize this article is critical of a Dem, but that's not the point of my posting it here. The thing is, are you sure that this deal will hurt US union workers? I've read other reports that say that it won't.

Again, I want to stress that I'm still on the fence about the deal, but I do think there may be an awful lot of misinformation floating around, which needs to be throughly researched before conclusions can reasonably be drawn. I'm not there yet, myself.

[yodermon]

13. very nice framing..

"If the British controlling our ports is a bad idea, Dubai is worse. If Clinton's trade deals were bad, Bush's are worse. If clinton's handling of boarder security was bad, Bush's is worse."

nicely done. :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Well said, PA, and a good corrective. K & R. n/t

[enigmatic]

6. Great post

Thanks for this.

[Wordie]

7. I recommended this thread, even though

I'm not certain I agree with all of it, just because it raises such an important point about thinking things through for oneself.

I also appreciate your caution to us, Plaid Adder, against getting so caught up in this issue that we don't see some of the philosophical underpinnings that accompany the views of some who are pushing against the deal with the UAE, namely racism. I also think that in evaluating material that is presented, it's crucial to understand the source of the material, in order to make up one's own mind.

What I'm really not certain yet about is the part about UAE ties to terrorism. I've read some on both sides now, and I have to admit I'm just not convinced yet by the arguments on either side. :sigh:

As far as that part is concerned, I feel I still need more information. (And I hope I don't get bombarded with links here. I have a lot I still need to study; I have a lot of reading material on the subject, it's just slogging through it all that's the difficulty!)

That said, I kinda think a ban on the letting of contracts for critical infrastructure functions with any foreign government may be the best approach anyway.

[Domitan]

8. Spot on!

Some of the PC-misguided kneejerkers on here need to see this.

[Justice Is Comin]

9. I put the blame where it belongs

on this miscreant in the White House. I don't know how he can even figure out how to put his fucking shoes on in the morning.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Just as long as we avoid comments like this:

"Countries like the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia (oh especially this piece of CRAP country, scumbags), Yemen, Pakistan, etc., are where the REAL heros of the USA SHOULD BE, and NOT Iraq. Sorry if I sound militant here, but why didn't we make tolietbowl countries like them into parking lots on Sept. 12th, 2001?"

Not, as you might think, from Free Republic, but from DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x405756

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. True, but it's still a disconcerting feeling when we agree with them.

I've seen many people here thinking this through and coming to the right conclusion.

Locally, I've seen many people reacting without thinking and coming to the right conclusion. Perhaps all of their reasons may not be as honorable, but in this case we've both arrived at the same conclusion. This port sale could be a mistake of epic proportions.

Thank you for putting into words what was in my mind.

[eridani]

14. Let's get real here

Us lefty fair trade and anti-imperialist people really do have policy allies on the right. They are coming from xenophobia, and we are coming from human solidarity (Solidarity fore-e-e-ver, solidarity forever, etc.), but if the same policy comes up in their crosshairs that appears in ours, we have to swallow hard and become allies of convenience. We can call out "towelhead" rhetoric when we hear it, though.

Let's not forget that it wasn't only Mark Twain and similar people who opposed the conquest of the Phillipines a century ago. So did the unionbusting Andrew Carnegie, who offered to buy the country for $10 million and set it free. Small government conservatives have always known that an imperial government is of necessity a big government.

[Domitan]

15. kickapoo