The random political thoughts thread

scaeagles · 02-21-2006, 01:37 PM

I don't make it a habit to go to downtown Phoenix at night, particularly a portion of a street named Van Buren. Many drug deals are known to happen there. Many prostitutes and their pimps roam around.

Everyone on this portion of Van Buren street is not a drug dealer, seeking to buy drugs, is not a pimp or a prostitute or looking to solicit one. However, when there are a million other places that I can find the legitimate offerings on Van Buren, why not play it safe and go elsewhere?

It is not something that has been pushed on us by the Bush administration. I think it might have something to do with the fact that Arabs were the ones that planned out and executed 9/11 and have sworn to do more of the same, and have in Europe.

It isn't that all Arabs seek to do this. However, why allow the UAE to do this when there would (presumably) be others that can perform the task as well? Particularly since the UAE is one of only 3 countries that acknowledged the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

But, even after this diatribe, I still go back and forth. My point is that it isn't fear of Middle Eastern countries that make me think it's a bad idea. It's logic.

wendybeth · 02-21-2006, 02:18 PM

I think Moon hit the nail on the head with the observation that it's this Admin's attitude coming back to bite them on the ass. The simple fact remains, no matter how politically incorrect it is, that the terrorists we've been dealing with of late have a few things in common: they are Middle-Eastern and/or Islamic. It's only natural that we would be a bit apprehensive at the prospect of the aforementioned plan. The real threat to this administration would be if terrorists did succeed in carrying out an attack either due to the neglignece of the new port officials, or even worse- with the help of. The Republican party would suffer greatly, and it's that prospect that would embolden the terrorists to throw everything they could into realising a successful attack.

I think the UAE are very much like the Saudi's, albeit they are slightly more liberal. They try to walk a thin line, but if push came to shove they would lean toward their Islamic neighbors rather than the West. It's a reality we need to deal with- Islam will win out over West, right or wrong.

scaeagles · 02-21-2006, 07:31 PM

I think I have come to a decision based on what I've read, heard, thought, blah, blah, blah.

I am no longer against it.

The UAE - Dubai in particular - is one of the more "westernized" Arab countries. More liberal, if you. Far fewer restrictions on women, more personal freedoms. If the US of A makes a decision that simply because they are an Arab nation that we cannot do business with them, then it sends a message to Arabs everywhere that westernization - however small it may be - we will not do business with them because we perceive them all as terrorists.

The only thing that changes from the way it is run now is the bean counters.

The longshoremen and their union will still be running the operations of the docks. The coast guard will still be in charge of all port security. As it is now, the Dubai shipping company (or whatever their name is) runs the docks from which almost everything that comes in to the US comes from.

I think more than Iraq and more than Iran and more than Afghanistan and more than our support of Isreal, what will speak to Mr. and Mrs. Average Abdul in the middle east would be the refusal of the US to do business with a country simply because they are, well, Arab. Why support any sort of reform to a western open philosophy that same western opn philosophy views them all as terrorists.

That being said, perhaps I am a racist. Would I feel the same way if Arabs would be the ones working the docks? I don't know. I don't think all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists we deal with are Arab. This is proving to be a difficult topic for me.

Alex · 02-21-2006, 08:08 PM

Like I said above, I have no real problem with the thought of an Arab company providing these services (any more than I had with a British company that did it before or the South Korean company that does it in other ports).

To the extent I have a problem with it, it is because it is not a private company but a government owned company. I think there should be more concern about foreign governments providing commercial services directly inside our country if there is any remote security issue. And I'd feel that way if it were the UAE or the British crown.

Scrooge McSam · 02-22-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

To the extent I have a problem with it, it is because it is not a private company but a government owned company.

That is the root of my discomfort, as well.

Gemini Cricket · 02-22-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Source

I'm confused by this. So he didn't know about it before it was approved but now is going to veto anyone who tries to stop it?

Huh

02-21-2006, 01:37 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't make it a habit to go to downtown Phoenix at night, particularly a portion of a street named Van Buren. Many drug deals are known to happen there. Many prostitutes and their pimps roam around. Everyone on this portion of Van Buren street is not a drug dealer, seeking to buy drugs, is not a pimp or a prostitute or looking to solicit one. However, when there are a million other places that I can find the legitimate offerings on Van Buren, why not play it safe and go elsewhere? It is not something that has been pushed on us by the Bush administration. I think it might have something to do with the fact that Arabs were the ones that planned out and executed 9/11 and have sworn to do more of the same, and have in Europe. It isn't that all Arabs seek to do this. However, why allow the UAE to do this when there would (presumably) be others that can perform the task as well? Particularly since the UAE is one of only 3 countries that acknowledged the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. But, even after this diatribe, I still go back and forth. My point is that it isn't fear of Middle Eastern countries that make me think it's a bad idea. It's logic.
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 02:18 PM	#2
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I think Moon hit the nail on the head with the observation that it's this Admin's attitude coming back to bite them on the ass. The simple fact remains, no matter how politically incorrect it is, that the terrorists we've been dealing with of late have a few things in common: they are Middle-Eastern and/or Islamic. It's only natural that we would be a bit apprehensive at the prospect of the aforementioned plan. The real threat to this administration would be if terrorists did succeed in carrying out an attack either due to the neglignece of the new port officials, or even worse- with the help of. The Republican party would suffer greatly, and it's that prospect that would embolden the terrorists to throw everything they could into realising a successful attack. I think the UAE are very much like the Saudi's, albeit they are slightly more liberal. They try to walk a thin line, but if push came to shove they would lean toward their Islamic neighbors rather than the West. It's a reality we need to deal with- Islam will win out over West, right or wrong. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 07:31 PM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I think I have come to a decision based on what I've read, heard, thought, blah, blah, blah. I am no longer against it. The UAE - Dubai in particular - is one of the more "westernized" Arab countries. More liberal, if you. Far fewer restrictions on women, more personal freedoms. If the US of A makes a decision that simply because they are an Arab nation that we cannot do business with them, then it sends a message to Arabs everywhere that westernization - however small it may be - we will not do business with them because we perceive them all as terrorists. The only thing that changes from the way it is run now is the bean counters. The longshoremen and their union will still be running the operations of the docks. The coast guard will still be in charge of all port security. As it is now, the Dubai shipping company (or whatever their name is) runs the docks from which almost everything that comes in to the US comes from. I think more than Iraq and more than Iran and more than Afghanistan and more than our support of Isreal, what will speak to Mr. and Mrs. Average Abdul in the middle east would be the refusal of the US to do business with a country simply because they are, well, Arab. Why support any sort of reform to a western open philosophy that same western opn philosophy views them all as terrorists. That being said, perhaps I am a racist. Would I feel the same way if Arabs would be the ones working the docks? I don't know. I don't think all Arabs are terrorists, but most terrorists we deal with are Arab. This is proving to be a difficult topic for me.
	Submit to Quotes

02-21-2006, 08:08 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Like I said above, I have no real problem with the thought of an Arab company providing these services (any more than I had with a British company that did it before or the South Korean company that does it in other ports). To the extent I have a problem with it, it is because it is not a private company but a government owned company. I think there should be more concern about foreign governments providing commercial services directly inside our country if there is any remote security issue. And I'd feel that way if it were the UAE or the British crown.
	Submit to Quotes