Originally Posted by Sagacious Lu

That's actually really f*!kin' scary. What possible justification could there be for something like this?

Originally Posted by Tant01

Keep your friends close by. Keep your enemies closer...

Originally Posted by GBush

No. Ha Ha.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Post Script:

As soon as I posted my last entry, I got an e-mail alert about the issue. Well, it was about something related to the issue. The story talked about donations of over $100,000,000 dollars by the UAE to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. These donations accounted for more than 4 times the amount donated by all other nations combined, and they went to help over 100,000 US citizens recover from the disaster. While the story certainly doesn't flash a big banner saying "Money means you can trust them," it does show a history of the UAE acting like allies in times of crisis. Why, one is forced to ask, would a country willing to help 100,000 Americans in their time of need want to use the ports as a way to attack them?

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Yeah but Boar, if we went by that logic, we'd also have to round up any Americans who happened to be of Arab descent and were practicing Muslims. We'd have to round up the arabs who criticize the war efforts, and we'd have to lock them all up in a concentration camp. Those folks have plenty in common with our enemies, and some of them even have family members living in "enemy" countries right now. And yet, you're even against listening to those people's phone conversations with their home countries! You can't have it both ways, my friend. You're fond of pointing out the mistakes we've made as a nation when we govern by racist ideology - locking up the Japanese Americans in World War II, etc. - and now it would seem as though your philosophy on the matter suggests the very things you've called mistakes in the past.

From a military, economic, and political standpoint, it would seem that the UAE would be a natural ally in the Middle East since they have strong reasons to work against both Iran and Saudi in favor of US interests, and since they depend on the US for assistance in their own personal disputes with both of those countries. Also, they represent a good balance of a majority sunni citizenship with about 20% or so christian, hindu, and other religions living in relative harmony. Good working model for other governments? Especially those that are just starting out...

The UAE relied upon British and US forces to safeguard their own shipping in the 80's, so we've really had a close relationship as far as ports and shipping lanes are concerned since the Iran-Iraq war. The relationship is not new, and the nature of the relationship isn't new either. Only the geography. We run ports in their country right now, as do the British, French, and others. In fact, UAE citizens are virtually a minority in their own country because of the numbers of foreign workers in the UAE.

Also, your comment that some of the 9-11 hijackers came from the UAE is a little shallow. Timothy McVeigh came from America. Does that mean we can't trust people from his home state because they might be terrorists like him? Bad people come from all over. That doesn't, in my mind at least, justify outright racism against the rest of the populations of their home countries.

If the UAE itself, or the companies that won the bid for management of these ports are a true security risk, then I'm 100% with you on the issue. But if it's a matter of trying to use scare tactics (Watch out for the terrorist Arabs!!) or racism to frighten people into opposing anything Arab, then I have to criticize the argument from the outset. It seems to me that the people harping the most on the "Arab" card (people who use statements like "giving middle eastern men control of our ports" and "selling arabs - our enemies - control of our borders") are the ones who at the beginning of this war made a huge stink about how we were invading yet another country full of dark skinned people and trying to kill them all off. It seems to me that people are using racism as realpolitik here. First, they scream and criticize Bush for attacking Arabs. Then they scream and criticize him for not attacking them. On the one hand, they don't want war with innocent Arab countries, and they don't want us to do things that might make other arab nations enemies of the US. They think that by fighting arabs, we're "breeding more terrorists." Yet on the other hand, they advocate excluding arab countries from business dealings with te US based solely on the fact that they are Arabs! It almost seems like the very people who have so vocally condemned Bush and his administration for alienating America from the rest of the world are now his most vocal critics now that he's taking steps to improve relations with Middle Eastern countries.

Like I said, if I research the issue and find reason to consider the deal a threat to US security, I will become the most vocal opponent of the deal on this board. Right now though, superficially, I'm seeing a lot of anger thrown at Bush from people who all but suggested he do this kind of thing a year or two ago. It smells like the argument is tainted as much by political agendas and racism as practical and realistic concerns.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Lu, this is a lot like saying "I know the US cooperates with Great Britain publicly, but tons of people contribute lots of money to the IRA and other groups like the UVF and the UFF. I wonder how much of the money Americans make in England goes straight to their enemies?" The world cannot function on paranoia and suspicion. Sure, it needs to investigate and make educated decisions - but acting on prejudice and assumptions is not good business.