Port Security

by pyrrho

This port issue is one I find very interesting in the same sense by which cabal is a spin off of spinsanity. That is, it's an interesting issue, but buried already in a sludge of spin.

Firstly, it's remarkable that some liberals jump to the "but they're Arabs!" angle so easily when it suits them. With confidence I'll point out it's the "centrist" democrats, not the more liberal, that do this, but still, it is remarkable.

Personally, I believe the question is of great use to the republic and damaging to the Republican myth of nationalistic patriotism. Republicans, like us all in the modern world, practically, are internationalists after all. And to my way of thinking, even if the answer is, "well, it's fine for Dubai to own American ports", the question itself is important to sort through, not so much for we that already pay attention, but for the public. The public may be fine with it or not, either way it is suitable for there to be public knowledge about the policy, because port security is an issue somewhat crucial to the current public understanding of our national security in general.

I tend to think of things in terms of system design, and in matters of national security, if possible, and it is possible, I believe American firms should do the work. In truly sensitive cases the government itself should do it, so yes, that includes a preference for excluding British firms as well as Dubai ones, but especially in the case of state owned firms.

OTOH, I'm not apoplectic about it. Indeed, quite the opposite, I think the issue is full of valuable points and questions, deserving of public debate whichever way they are decided in the end. Too bad the public is so bad at debate (their leaders make it hard on them, but then, they don't have to follow) and that the debate degrades so quickly, practically before it's even begun.

One more comment before I leave it for now: I was surprised Bush was willing to threaten veto, even veto, in defense of the deal, I thought he'd back off quicker than a Nader voter at an Al Gore fan club meeting.

Comments

[Winston Smith]

It's not that they're Arabs, which is not the issue at all.

[pyrrho]

oh, it has been for some Winston.

[JD]

It absolutely is, Winston. There are people on both sides of the aisle that cannot believe that we could possibly let some Middle Eastern people be in charge of the administrative process of running the ports.

How dare we do that? They might look the other way while their second cousin twice removed, Tamir and Salim, attempt to sneak a dirty bomb into Baltimore harbor. Why? Because a couple of the 9/11 asshats were from the UAE?

I find it interesting that if you accept the proposition of the opponents of this issue make - that we should not do business with anybody that has even a fragile connection to terrorism - that those that consider themselves to be the most sensitive and caring and tolerant are essentially saying that we will actively condone blatant discrimination against an entire region of the world, in order to score political points.

Nobody is going to "own" our ports, and we are certainly not outsourcing our security to the UAE, unless you are willing to believe that the Coast Guard, Customs, FBI, etc... are all just going to quit doing the jobs that they already do.

Did this bother everybody so much when we "outsourced" these administrative operations to Great Britain ? Why is it alright for us to let the Brits do this, but not those from the Emirates ?

[Winston Smith]

“those that consider themselves to be the most sensitive and caring and tolerant are essentially saying that we will actively condone blatant discrimination against an entire region of the world
in order to score political points”

This is a pretty tiresome strawman, JD, and we can see how tattered it’s getting when the party that won’t apologize for shrieking “ragheads” is toying with accusations that ports deal opponents are . . . you guessed it: “racist.”

The 99% sane left I know has never vied to be “the most sensitive and caring and tolerant” when it comes to US security: that’s a Karl Rove construct. Inventing imaginary democrats bearing fruit baskets to Iranian mullahs beats admitting those mullahs are the chief beneficiaries of what’s now the Iraq civil war.

[darkhorse]

Gee, I don't know if you can fault the public's debate skills on this comedy. The response to this arrangement by both sides in Congress has bordered on the theatrical. They seem appalled by something they have yet to understand. Frist seems to have drawn another one of his thoughtful evidence-lacking Terri Schiavo type conclusions about this with the caveat that it requires further study, ostensibly to allow him to determine whether his public indignation is justified.

[pyrrho]

I do not think it should be about Arabaphobia... HOWEVER, infiltration of a company like this is clearly a possible way to compromise security at its properties.

So I'm not ready to say this is not a factor, the history of UAE positions on US policy is very important, actually.

So it's a minefield. Personally my mind loves minefield issues, though it takes a certain type of contestant to have a contest in a minefield, and it's not long before the powerful subtleties are all lost.

In the end analysis I suspect my position will be as now, that I think American firms in good standing should perform these roles. I'm not paranoid about the British doing it, I'm not paranoid about Dubai doing it, however, on the issue, I believe there is a reason to use US firms in cases of nearly-direct impact on national security.

And no, this is not general, in general, I believe in international economy and big engineering projects should call on bids from around the world, judging on quality and price in an attempted objective process.

[Winston Smith]

I don't see that the irony is that Bush's critics are racist or xenophobic.

The irony is for the Administration's business to be threatened by the hysteria it's fanned since 9/11

[Kav]

I think that in this story there is plenty of irony to go around. In support of Winston's comment above here is what Kevin Drum had to say:

On a related note, it makes me feel almost nostalgic to watch the toxic stew of cherry picking, half truths, and outright misrepresentations currently being used to demonize the UAE as a virtual arm of al-Qaeda. You know what it reminds me of? The way Bush & Co. tried to sell Saddam Hussein as Osama's best buddy in the Middle East. It's poetic watching the Bushies squirm when they're on the receiving end of this stuff.

[Dietrich]

>>I don't see that the irony is that Bush's critics are racist or xenophobic.

>>The irony is for the Administration's business to be threatened by the hysteria it's fanned since 9/11

well put, that's truly poetic justice, and I cannot feel too sorry for them, of COURSE, the criticism will rely on that...

except: liberals should still know better.

[Dietrich]

see, that just makes me so suspicious however... the pleasure of watching them squirm... how healthy can that possibly be, and yet I admit fully to seeing it, and while it's uncomfortable, I see the "poetic justice" of it, so I'm "enjoying" is on some level too.

I don't like that state of affairs, but I do like the possibility that this issue dissolves a framework of nationalistic arabophobia at least a little.

[pyrrho]

Damn you Dietrich, those were good points but you bastard you ate the last Red Baron Western Breakfast Scramble and blamed it on Hubris. For that I cannot forgive!!!

ok.

um.

that was really me.

I am Dietrich. And I ate the Scramble.

[Chum]

The contention that xenophobia is playing a major role in the grassroots opposition to Dubai Ports World taking over six key east coast ports from a British company is way off of the mark.

It's not the general distrust of Arabs that concerns many Americans, it is the fear of terrorism that has been sewn into every fiber of our beings. How many times have we heard from a politician trying to sell us everything from the need to shop more to unrelated wars that 9/11 changed everything? Now when a country that had proven ties to those blamed for the attacks on that day want us to trust them in controlling one of the most important aspects of our commerce we should suddenly let our guards down? It's not likely to happen.

Not to get overly conspiratal, but didn't the Bush family have close ties to the bin Laden family prior to 9/11? How well did their judgment in business partners work out on that one?

Further, this is not simply a sale between two private companies. Dubai Ports World is a direct extension of the emirs who rule the United Arab Emirates. Therefore it is a de facto foreign government entity who will control the ports, not some private concern whose only goal is to turn a profit. UAE is a country run by unelected individuals which obviously fails the Bush administrations' most basic foreign policy tenet - creating democracies where they don't currently exist. How will making monarchs more powerful and richer help the conversion to free elections? What happens when internal or external conditions affect the present good relationship we have with the rulers? Since supplies to our troops flow through these ports has anyone thought about how intentional delays might impact military efforts with which the UAE may disagree?

Another red herring is the claim that we should encourage Arab countries to invest in America. They are buying a British company so where is this direct investment proponents hail?

So which is it? Do we still have to be vigilant in exercising extraordinary care while watching for threats at every turn or is it time that we can move past the climate of fear within which we have been mired?

When the Bush administration opts to desist in playing the "f" card whenever it suits their agenda, I'm confident many of us wouldn't have to scrutinize every national transaction in a environment of fear that they propagate.

[Averroes]

I'm late in responding to this one. I intend here to respond to pyrrho's original argument without regard to any later comments, as if i had come upon this article alone, and comment on any comments later.

pyrrho: ". . .it's remarkable that some liberals jump to the "but they're Arabs!" angle so easily when it suits them. With confidence I'll point out it's the "centrist" democrats, not the more liberal, that do this, . . ."

>>Interesting. I don't, offhand, have any information in support of this assertion nor either its converse or contradiction. I would be intereted in your support for this assertion.

"Personally, I believe the question is of great use to the republic and damaging to the Republican myth of nationalistic patriotism. Republicans, like us all in the modern world, practically, are internationalists after all."

>>Apparently you weren't paying attention when the Republicans supported CAFTA and other internatinal free-trade measures, and supported galavanting around the globe supporting democracies. These are not conservative isolationists who propose opposing globalization and general tarriffs, for example. Is the upshot of your statement here an implication that "nationalistic patriotism" excludes allowing foreign business to operate in the US in general or in management of our porst in particular? Do you think that "nationalistic patriotism" might refer to the general supporting of love of country and the notion that we ought to do what is generally in our best interests as a country before considering what is in the inerests of other countries?

"The public may be fine with it or not, either way it is suitable for there to be public knowledge about the policy, because port security is an issue somewhat crucial to the current public understanding of our national security in general."

>>Of course. It is sad, however, that the public is forced to attempt to glean their knowledge of the issue from political statements. probably best is for those interested in the subject to ignore these pronouncements and seek the facts AND for those in the public who base their reasoning on pronouncements and glib comments to be ignored.

"I tend to think of things in terms of system design, and in matters of national security, if possible, and it is possible, I believe American firms should do the work."

>>Yes, that is an issue, but not the issue in this case. For the answer to that issue has alreqdy been decidedm, although we may re-open it.

"In truly sensitive cases the government itself should do it,"

>>Yikes! This, of course, is "liberal rubbish." The government should probably do security in "sensitive cases," but for running the ports, it is better if the government sets standards and provides regulatory oversite.

"Too bad the public is so bad at debate (their leaders make it hard on them, but then, they don't have to follow) and that the debate degrades so quickly, practically before it's even begun."

>>This paragraph, from which i quoted, is right on the mark, but I wouldn't put so much on the debate or lack of it. After all, in important questions which require some sophistication to decide, we don't go to the public for debate. We almost never settle on the diagnosis or treatment for a medical complaint by going to a street corner and discussing it with passers-by.

"I was surprised Bush was willing to threaten veto, even veto, in defense of the deal, I thought he'd back off quicker than a Nader voter at an Al Gore fan club meeting."

>>I didn't think he would back off because i think that he is forced by his foreign policy to support the Emerites on this. but threatening a veto is out of character for Bush, and, inlight of his record, a bit hollow. It's a bit like Casper Milquetoast rthretening to punch out someone who proposes that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.

[Averroes]

I propose now to go through the comments inorder, commenting on what strikes my fancy as i go. As in the thread below, I will probably make certain errors and have certain misunderstandings using this method. here we go:

Winston: "It's not that they're Arabs, which is not the issue at all."

pyrrho: "oh, it has been for some Winston."

JD: "It absolutely is, Winston. "

Winston is right, in the absolute sense, but pyrrho is certainly right that it has been for some. Thus, JD overstates the case. This is another example of trying to come up with one reason for opposition and apply it to everyone. Life is more complicated. I propose that these statements are likely to be true:

1) Some have opposed this because of an emnity towards Arabs.

2) Most have opposed this for other reasons.

3) many have opposed this for more than one reason, one of which may be an emnity towards Arabs.

4) The statements of those in opposition may not exactly express the person's motives for opposition exactly, that is, they may not enujmerate all the reasons, or may not express the actual importants for an individual opposition in exact measure. So, one may have an emnity for Arabs but not express it, attempting to be more politically correct, or, on the other hand, one may appeal to others' emnity toward Arabs without actually having any to rally support for the oppostion.

JD: "Did this bother everybody so much when we "outsourced" these administrative operations to Great Britain ? Why is it alright for us to let the Brits do this, but not those from the Emirates ?"

A beter example is China. Allowing China to controll a US port is much more dangerous for our national good than the UAE deal. Where were the screamers when that happened?

Winston (quoting JD and commenting): [“those that consider themselves to be the most sensitive and caring and tolerant are essentially saying that we will actively condone blatant discrimination against an entire region of the world
in order to score political points”

This is a pretty tiresome strawman, JD, and we can see how tattered it’s getting when the party that won’t apologize for shrieking “ragheads” is toying with accusations that ports deal opponents are . . . you guessed it: “racist.” ]

This man is not straw, of course, in general. Politically speaking, the liberals have always claimed to be more sensitive and caring, and, in fact, have been. Politically.

Now, speaking of ragheads, Winston should show us just where the Republican party shrieked about "ragheads." Anyone can play. A few official documents from [ary headquarters will suffice. Failing that, how about a party leader saying something like, "I think i speak for all Republicans when I say that we have toi get all those ragheads over there," along with either a "right on" from other party leaders, or a complete absence of criticism. I think i must have missed this one. I suspect that it is one of those tired myths about the party of Lincoln.

Winston: "The 99% sane left I know has never vied to be “the most sensitive and caring and tolerant” when it comes to US security:"

Of course, this is self-justifying. If someone were to provide an example of a liberal vying to be sensitive in this case, Winston could simply exclude them thereby from the "sane left." But even Winston must agree that liberalism has always responded to those who do evil by proposing sensitivity. Criminals, for the liberals, are not "evil-doers_ at heart, but the products of their environmnet and we would do well to be sensitive enough to consider this in dealing with them. Liberals rarely demand that we lock them up and throw away the key, the other extreme (unless, of course, the offender does something really evil, like propose that a liberal dogma may be incorrect, in which case the liberal may propose shunning the offender absolutely--Some things are so evil that considerations of sensitivity ARE inappropriate!).

We should admit that some liberals, some I, at least, consider sane, responded to attacks on our national security by counseling that we respond with a little consideration, rather than reflexively, and that we consider the environment in which the perpetrators and supporters of those attacks evolved. Some went so far as to propose that we should extend that sensitivity so far as to examine how these attacks are understandable in light of the evil policies of the US, and that we, showing sensitivity, should change the objectionable policies therefore.

We must admit that such sensitivbity is efficacious, even if we do not propose that it be the proimary driver of our foreign policy. So, we can see that the response to this sensitivity is equally out of place, attacking those who propose something that could enlighten our foroign policy, lead to our better understanding, as "attack America firsters" and "traitors."

WE should try to get as much information as possible about the why's of the atacks, of course, and refuse to participate in any reflexive response on either side.

Winston: "Inventing imaginary democrats bearing fruit baskets to Iranian mullahs beats admitting those mullahs are the chief beneficiaries of what’s now the Iraq civil war."

>>Appalling! I don't remember anone inventing any Democrats inventing imaginary Democrats bearing fruit baskets to iranian Mullahs. Perhaps Winston will provide us with the necessary backup to this assertion. Apparently Winston believes that it is ok to invent imaginary persons inventining imaginary Democrats bearing (imaginary) fruitbaskets to iranian mullahs for the saske of political argument. he seems to be providing us an example here of phony, duishonest, and sociopathic baiting. But that's just HIS opinion.

Further, he here assumes, again, without evidence OR argument, that there is a civil war, AND that the iranian mullahs are the chief beneficiaries. These things are a matter of argument, not fact.

The other day I checked on Roiverbend, always the most nbegative about things. She hereself questioned the notion that there was a civil war NOW. She said that if there is, it doesn't fell like it because where she lives, in Baghdad, Shi-ites and Sunnies have joined together to help each other. She reports that they all are more fearful of the national police/military than they are of maurauding civil war participants.

Darkhorse: "The response to this arrangement by both sides in Congress has bordered on the theatrical."

>>And in some cases, they have breeched (not overtopped) the border. Because:

Darkhorse: "They seem appalled by something they have yet to understand."

>>Of course, some have supported it without waiting to understand it.

pyrrho: "I do not think it should be about Arabaphobia... HOWEVER, infiltration of a company like this is clearly a possible way to compromise security at its properties."

>>In fact, this is something that we should be alert to. But it is obviated by the fact that secuyrity is still to run by the US, anbd the actual dock sworkers will still be our friends in the ILU. Even the company involved seems to have Americans in many of its key upper management positions.

I think we can say that there is nothing which can be said to be a unique possible threat to security added by this comapany being owned by UAE. In other words, my bet is that if you can cite a possible security breech, it is one that is possible even if the controlling company was American.

So the only possible difference, in the main, must have to do with motive. We simply cannot trust the Arabs to have the Americans' welfare at heart. We conclude, i think, that because we can't necessarily trust the motivers of the Arabs, that makes a security breech more likely.

I think that because we cannot trust the motives of any company operating the ports with regard to motives involvoing the well-being of America (that is, I take it as gospel ythat a company's first motive is its OWN well-being), we should run port security as if we cannot trust the motives of the company running it. No matter who runs it.

OF COURSE, the arguments that we should exclude the Dubai company because two of the 911 perpetrators haled from there, or because money for the attack went through there are silly and stupid, as well as racist and phony. If they weren't, the same arguers would have tried to exclude the British company because Richard Reed came from Britain, and would try to excludew American comapnies because some of the money for the 911 attacks was funnelled through American banks.

pyrrho: "So I'm not ready to say this is not a factor, the history of UAE positions on US policy is very important, actually."

>>Yes. they should at least be as friendly toward our national well-bing as, say, China.

pyrrho: "I'm not paranoid about the British doing it, I'm not paranoid about Dubai doing it, however, on the issue, I believe there is a reason to use US firms in cases of nearly-direct impact on national security."

>>I belive that this is the best position. So, since the Dubai issue is not about shether American companies should do the job, the correct way to proceed might be to settle this issue, probably in favor of the takeover, and then, after a suitable period of waiting, bring up the broader issue, which, if pout ito effect, would require that ALL foriegn companies now controlling US ports submit to divestiture.

Winston: "The irony is for the Administration's business to be threatened by the hysteria it's fanned since 9/11"

>>Another phony, false, dishonest, sociopathic piece of baitng from the master. Of course, we have been over this before, and no one has been able to show either hysteria or fanning. It is offered here as a matter of faith.

To review quickly, the usual argument is that two members of the administration saying that we can't afford to wait until the smoking gun appears in the form of a mushroom cloud (an absolutely true statement) somehow caused the kind of hysteria that we sometimes saw in the 50s.

[Warning-cornpone alert] For example, a kid once phoned a bomb scare into the school. the school handled this extremely badly, halting all activities, until they decided that the students should be sent home. Some teachers came streaming into clqasses announcing "there's a bomb, you have to go home." Some where, in fact, a bit hysterical. However, because of the tenor of the times, the "bomb" got translated in students' minds into "the Russians are coming." So hundreds of students ran home (or to the Catholic Church locted on the nexct block) to announce that they were sent home becausde Russia was attacking us with bombs. The hysteria spread until people sho called the school got the correct story.

In this case, Winston, and others who believe in this irrational dogma, should endeavor to answer a few questions:

1) Were YOU made hysterical, and, if so, what did it? Or was it just those common, stupid people who became hysterical?

2) Do you know anyone who became hysterical because of things the Bush administration said?

3) Did those who became hysterical do so because they heard what Rice and Bush said directly, or because they heard someone in the media say it? If the latter is true, would it not be the media that "fanned" the hysteria? (In fact, this is pyrrho's argument, but he adds that the Bush administration was so smart that they decided to have only two instances of saying this (I guess so that fact-finders like me could point out that it was said only twice) while they knew they could count on the media to do the fanning.)

For the purposes of this discussion, let's just not that 'hysteria' means 'acting as if you have a uterus,' and is defined more specifically as:

1) a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and psychic, sensory, vasomotor, visceral functions; or,

2) unmanageable fear or emotional excess.

Of course the first definition is not appropriate here given what is thought about the etiology of hysteria, although one could argue that an hysteric would be more susceptable to reacting to statemenst with bouts of out of control emotions.

So, we must show, for this claim to be true, that in general, the reaction to administration statements was unmanagable fear and emotional excess. perhaps mpost people ran through the streets, shook uncontrollably, wept continuously, etc., and i didn't notice it. i admit that i don't get out much.

In conjunction with this, some evidence of the administration's "fanning" must be shown. No such evidence has ever been offered here or at Spinsanity.

I will, in the interests of my own search for the truth, welcome any and all evidence here. You know, increased psychiatric hospital admissions where the presenter is shown to have become hysterical or claims to have become hysterical due to something the Bush administraion said. Newspaper clippings describing or newspaper photos showing masses of people showing the signs of hysteria and documentation that it had to do with Bush administration statements and fanning. Archived TV programs showing same. Winston apparently has these items, and should be more than willing to share them here.

I would say that in the light of what we now know, it iws true that the statements of the Bush administration led to a level of concern that is not supported by what we now know. BEFORE the war, i argued that the Bush administration was doing what politicians often do in their situation, presenting a worst-case scenario and proposing policy on a abundance of caution.

Now, i have one more thing to say about this, but i want to warn that those with hysterical personalities and/or active hysteria should not read further.

All you hysterics gone? if you aren't, don't say i didn't warn you.

Let's take another, analogous example, and examine it.

Suppose that I were to make this statement:

In light of the response to Katrina, the continuing slowness in relief and cleanup efforts, not to mention rebuilding, coupled with little evidence of changes in Homeland security and a general seeming lack of administration attention to disaster relief, I am afraid that there is reason to believe that we as a nation are not prepared to handle another largescale disaster. I believe that we should take action now because we cannot afford to wait until the smoking gun appears in the form of another Katrina."

If I and others were to repeat this twice, would we be causing hysteria, if there were any? Do you think that jmost people would react to this with hysteria, even those who were in the path of Katrina? If, in fact, there is no katrina next year, would i be accused of using doubtful facts to support my agenda (getting better disaster response) by causing the spread of unwarranted fear and hysteria among the populace?

(To be continued)

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "see, that just makes me so suspicious however... the pleasure of watching them squirm... how healthy can that possibly be, and yet I admit fully to seeing it, and while it's uncomfortable, I see the "poetic justice" of it, so I'm "enjoying" is on some level too."

>>You see, this is exactly what makes me and others swuspicious that the causing of the squirming, as you put it, is the aim of such criticism for some. this particular incidence has been unusual in that it was bipartisan, but you must admit that such criticism is usually, at lest on the face of it, political. the Republicans want to make the Democrats squirm and the Democrats the Republicans. And that is politics.

pyrrho:

"I don't like that state of affairs, but I do like the possibility that this issue dissolves a framework of nationalistic arabophobia at least a little."

>>OK. Explain what you mean by "nationalistic Arabophobia," who exactly partakes in it (by citing examples), and please explain what the framework is.

One example, if i may, in the interim, assume a meaning for your term, is the man in Mesa Arizona, who shot an Indian gentleman (whom he thought "looked Arab") shortly after the 911 attacks. For framework, you might expolain who supported this man on nationalistic basis, and how parties led him to do this with their framework.

Chum: "Now when a country that had proven ties to those blamed for the attacks on that day . . ."

>>I think the word 'ties' is a little strong. I would suggest using the words that the Bush administraion used for the Iraq-bin Laden connection--that is, connection of nexus. (I believe that the administration may have also used 'ties,' based on intel that said that there wwas training.) To me, 'ties' connotes more than just contact, something substantial. There were, of course, connections between UAE and the terrorists, but, to my knowledge, no one has asserted an "operation alliance," or anything cloise to it, nor even prior knowledge. Mostly we have things like "The UAE recognized the Taliban," which is true, but may not mean anything more than that they saw them as many Muslims did when they took over, devout Muslims bent on bringing order to a country long in chaos and improving the lot of the people in Afghanistan.

Chum: ". . .want us to trust them in controlling one of the most important aspects of our commerce we should suddenly let our guards down?"

>>I don't remember one instance of any politician or anyone else arguing that we should let our guard down. Do you?

Chum: "Not to get overly conspiratal, but didn't the Bush family have close ties to the bin Laden family prior to 9/11?"

>>Are you proposing that it is not posibble that other members of the bin Laden family were not totally in cahhots with Osama? Should you not hire someone whose son robs or steals simply because that son robbed or stole? Do you think that because your business partner's son robbed or stole, or even murdered, that this fact alone means that you chose a poor business partner? Finally, would you have made these arguments if Bush had done business with a white American family, one of whose members committed terrorism in the US?

Chum: "Further, this is not simply a sale between two private companies. Dubai Ports World is a direct extension of the emirs who rule the United Arab Emirates."

>>I don't know why you use the word 'extension' here. What is true is that the government of UAE owns the company, although there is no evidence that they are involved in actual operation of the company. of course, that could change, and we should be aware of that.

Chum: "UAE is a country run by unelected individuals which obviously fails the Bush administrations' most basic foreign policy tenet - creating democracies where they don't currently exist."

>>Isn't it amazing how much better realpolitik sounds even to an idealist when one must seek allies in a war.

Chum: "Since supplies to our troops flow through these ports has anyone thought about how intentional delays might impact military efforts with which the UAE may disagree?"

>>A good point which could be made for any non-US, or even US, controller of our ports. What happens if we have a military excursion with which the ILU disagrees?

"Another red herring is the claim that we should encourage Arab countries to invest in America. They are buying a British company so where is this direct investment proponents hail?"

>>Yes and no. If Lamborghini bought Daimler, would they be investing in the US? This is not a direct investment, of course, but it is an investment in a company which operates in the US (and that is the issue). If this deal is negated, don't you think that that would discourage Arab investment in the US?

Chum: "When the Bush administration opts to desist in playing the "f" card whenever it suits their agenda,"

>>You will, of course, easily provide us of proof that the Bush adminiwtration has "played the f card" in circumstances in which the3y did so ONLY to suit their agenda, that is, in circumstances where there was no danger, they knew there was no danger, but they invented danger anyway to promote their agenda.

>>pyrrho: ". . .it's remarkable that some liberals jump to the "but they're Arabs!" angle so easily when it suits them. With confidence I'll point out it's the "centrist" democrats, not the more liberal, that do this, . . ."

>>>>Interesting. I don't, offhand, have any information in support of this assertion nor either its converse or contradiction. I would be intereted in your support for this assertion.

thanks for asking this... I hoped it was clear, but I admit this is a sheepish "confidence"... confidence IN PLACE of proof.

I'm not entirely sure...

[pyrrho]

""In truly sensitive cases the government itself should do it,"

>>Yikes! This, of course, is "liberal rubbish." The government should probably do security in "sensitive cases," but for running the ports, it is better if the government sets standards and provides regulatory oversite."

hah! liberal rubbish you agreed with... "truly sensitive cases"... and neither of us insisted the ports fell under that designation.

[pyrrho]

arabophobia: no, I leave it for your judgement to deny or affirm because as I have warned you before, I have been on chases for you, finding things according to criteria you offer, and it always fails to convince, not just me, but you. I don't accept such assignments as obsticles.

If you think there is no framework of arabophobia in this nation right now, or in the West, you are welcome to that view, entirely.

If you are implying there is not (your assignment doesn't acctually convey what you think the result of such research would be), fine, then I think this question prevents, rather than "dissolves" it...

you see how your assignment does not acctually affect my statement? That this question forces the US to face it's Arabophobia (or encounter a lack thereof according to you, I am guessing, who knows), and that it also challenges the notion that you agree is false, by which Republican's are thought to be conservative.

[pyrrho]

oh and to clarify something...

I think the assumption of automatic nationalistic patriotism on behalf of Republicans affects this because the idea in that assumption is a preference for American business, an idea that American business is the best in the world, it can do anything, there really can't be a better choice for big American jobs.

Note, I'm much more internationalist than that, myself, though I do believe American business is pretty much still up to any job.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "I'll point out it's the "centrist" democrats, not the more liberal, that do this, . . .I hoped it was clear, but I admit this is a sheepish "confidence"... confidence IN PLACE of proof.

I'm not entirely sure... "

>>I'm not sure, either, but my BET is that among responsible politicians at the national level who were partaking in this discussion, almost zero were spurred by arabophobia, at least as the most important urge.

pyrrho: "arabophobia: no, I leave it for your judgement to deny or affirm because as I have warned you before, I have been on chases for you, finding things according to criteria you offer, and it always fails to convince, not just me, but you."

>>There is no such chare here; I have merely asked you to define a term you used. It seems to me that you have two choices (at least):

1) Define the term as you understopod it when you used it; or

2) Admit, on reflection, and as i have often been forced to do, that the term was more a facile use of language which excapes being meaningful when examined.

Your answer makes it clear that you are doing the latter, but also throwintg out some ink in the process to obscure your escape.

No need.

So....

pyrrho: "If you think there is no framework of arabophobia in this nation right now, or in the West, you are welcome to that view, entirely."

>>I would not know how to answer this question because i haven't the foggiest notion of what you mean by "framework of Arabophobia." And THAT is why i asked the user, and, presumably, coiner of the term for a definition.

I suppose that one could say that since we have freedom of speech, that, in itself, provides a "framework" which allows the exprtession of any view, including those based on phobias, and that, thus, there IS a "framework of Arabophobia" directly in the constitution. But I have a feeling that this is not what YOU meant by the term.

pyrrho, quoting and stuff: [

""In truly sensitive cases the government itself should do it,"

>>Yikes! This, of course, is "liberal rubbish." The government should probably do security in "sensitive cases," but for running the ports, it is better if the government sets standards and provides regulatory oversite."

hah! liberal rubbish you agreed with... "truly sensitive cases"... and neither of us insisted the ports fell under that designation.]

>>I should point out here that "liberal rubbish" is in quotes, and when i use this term, it is always an allusion to Monty Python.

Also note that I said, and you did not note, that I thought that the government should "do security in sensitive cases. (Check above.) My answer, carefully read, implies that running ports cannot be a "sensitive case."

Remember, some have said that Bush should allow the UAE to guard him. But that misses the point. The question is whether or not he would allow the UAE to run the White House schedule.

At the time i wrote this, i was not convinced that running a port has significant security implications, at least none that should override the security that we ourselves should put in place. If it does, then NO foreign entity of any kind should run any of our ports. %To that end, I somewhat support the present bill which would require the divestiture of all foreign holdings in port management.

I just thought that this was an all or nothing issue, and that nothing was to be gained from singling out the UAE when the next great super power and the nation which is our greatest threat is already running an American port, and there weems to have been little objection to its doing so.

pyrrho: "I think the assumption of automatic nationalistic patriotism on behalf of Republicans affects this because the idea in that assumption is a preference for American business, an idea that American business is the best in the world, it can do anything, there really can't be a better choice for big American jobs."

>>I don't know quite what to make of this, other than to say that one needs to adress the realities rather than one's constructs used in place of them.

It is certainly true that SOME Republicans think that American business is the best in the world (while they war their Armani suits and italian shoes while riding to the capital in their Mercedes' and listen to music on their japanese sound system).

This assumption about American business is not core to conservatism; rather, what IS core is the belief that what is good for American business is good for America. Thus, for a true conservative, outside the political psoturing, is that they are quite confortable calling for tariffs just because American business is not the best (in a particular instance).

What we are hearing now from Republicans and conservatibes is precisely that American business is in big trouble, and if our education system is allowed to drift, we will lose any technological edge we might now have.

In short, conservatibes have traditionally been protectionists. this sort of implies that they do not believe that American business can prevail without some protection.

This is another measure of how the Republicans have drifted from conservatism. In this case, i am a libertarian, and say that the game of corporate business should be internationalized, and that, ulstimately, this will benefit the most people (that's the faith, after all).

This reminds me (although is not directly analogous) of the wars played out over decades in Arizona. Laws are passed forcing the government to take low bids on contracts after it is discovered that high-ball contracts are being awarded to local biders, costing the state millions. A few years later, the newspapers report that "Arizona has lost 1.6 million jobs over 5 years" because contracts have been awarded to bidders from out of state. This leads to legislation that forces the government to consider Arizona bidders first. 5 years later....

To me, those conservativess and Republicans who insist on using American businesses do so for reasons other than an irratinal belief that American business is best. many do so because they believe that using American business neads to American employment. Remember, Ross Perot opposed NAFTA, predicting a "giant sucking sound," that sound the rush of jobs to Mexico.

Let me say here that i don't put much stock in political pronoiuncements about the greatness of American business, which are liable to come from any politician, even those who make a career out of damning American business as evil and corrupt. These pronou8ncements are necessary political cud. they are a bit like saying you hail from "the great state of...." You just aren't going to hear a politician say that he hails from "the state of...., which, while not a great state, is better than some, even thought we did have that big corruption scandal last year, i still think we are better than mississippi."

[pyrrho]

>>>I'm not sure, either, but my BET is that among responsible politicians at the national level who were partaking in this discussion, almost zero were spurred by arabophobia, at least as the most important urge.

interesting point. I would agree but not really in that while i don't think they personally might be spurred on by arabophobia, I DO believe they are reacting on behalf of their political ability to make gains from arabophobia. That is, even if it doesn't exist, these "leaders" consider the people to have a big dose of exploitable arabophobia, as we're calling it.

[pyrrho]

>1) Define the term as you understopod it when you used it; or

>2) Admit, on reflection, and as i have often been forced to do, that the term was more a facile use of language which excapes being meaningful when examined.

>Your answer makes it clear that you are doing the latter, but also throwintg out some ink in the process to obscure your escape.

all I ask as we engage is that you are fair and let me speak for myself.

I did not realize you were unable to understand this concept as given. My definition of "arabophobia" is at this time the idea that the Arabs are out to get us, that the Arabs are in a war against us, they hate us for our freedoms, and they are all pretty much the same such that we can know Iraq did not attack us on 911, but that's ok, close enough, they're arabs, attack them anyway.

no meaning? it's obvious it has meaning to me. But again, if you think otherwise, say so, but don't tell me what I think, please. Thanks.

[pyrrho]

as I read on in your message I'm struck by how disengenuous it seems.

I do not believe you don't know what I meant by "Arabophobia". I believe you are trying to assail that term as an argumentative tactic, in which case you should say so rather than pretend the word has no meaning at all. It may be the term doesn't apply, but xenophibic fear of "the Arab" is not in fact difficult to imagine or find right now.
pyrrho: "I think the assumption of automatic nationalistic patriotism on behalf of Republicans affects this because the idea in that assumption is a preference for American business, an idea that American business is the best in the world, it can do anything, there really can't be a better choice for big American jobs."

>>I don't know quite what to make of this, other than to say that one needs to adress the realities rather than one's constructs used in place of them.

"the realities" instead of the constructs. In my view we create the constructs to model the reality. I don't know of the direct path to reality you argue for. Perhaps that's not reality you speak of but rather just "your view".

>>This assumption about American business is not core to conservatism; rather, what IS core is the belief that what is good for American business is good for America.

as I said, the Republicans have this reputation, and it does not fit for reasons including those you've given. I'm saying this question dissolves false ideas people have about Republicans. No, I'm not going to go prove people have that opinion about them... frankly, I long for a day people don't have it. If that's now, great, but no, not yet.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "I would agree but not really in that while i don't think they personally might be spurred on by arabophobia, I DO believe they are reacting on behalf of their political ability to make gains from arabophobia. That is, even if it doesn't exist, these "leaders" consider the people to have a big dose of exploitable arabophobia, as we're calling it."

>>Let's see if i can make the same point without the cynical assumptions. It involves the notion of relationship with constiuencies. remember, this is an election year for all representatives and a third of Senators.

While probably few if any politicians were motivated to oppose the ports deal because of personal Arabophobia, they did respond to overwhelming responses from their constituencies against the deal, and represented this in the legislative bodies. That response in the constituencies was largely based on security concerns, but the more cynical may propose that this security concern merely is a mask for pervasive Arabophobia.

Now, are you willing to argue that those politicians who argued for the deal were acting because of a perceived exploitable Arabophilia?

pyrrho: "all I ask as we engage is that you are fair and let me speak for myself."

>>I have asked you to, and you have so far refused. maybe it is my fault (see below).

pyrrho: "I did not realize you were unable to understand this concept as given. My definition of "arabophobia" is at this time the idea that the Arabs are out to get us, that the Arabs are in a war against us, they hate us for our freedoms, and they are all pretty much the same such that we can know Iraq did not attack us on 911, but that's ok, close enough, they're arabs, attack them anyway."

>>Wow! I thought i knew what 'Arabophobia' meant, but I CERTAINLY did not know how you were using it! My meaning is not so specific.

I have met a few people with Arabophoobia, but i have never met anyone who meets your definition. And among politicians, and certainly with Bush, your term does not apply. i did noitice that you sneak in the old lie about iraq having something to do w3ith 9121 or not again. Tsk, Tsk.

pyrrho: "I do not believe you don't know what I meant by "Arabophobia". I believe you are trying to assail that term as an argumentative tactic,"

>>I guess i wshould apologize here for being unclear. I wasn't assailing the term 'Arabophobia,' although your thinking i was led me to the knowledge that you have a very strange definition, one not found in my dictionary. What i was asking you about (not assailing) was your definition for a term for which i still don't know your meaning, namely, "tyhe framework of nationalistic Arabophobia," as you used it originally. It "feels" more like some accusatory term than an enlightening term to me, but rather than simply react to it that way, i have been waiting for your actual definition. I await it still.

For reference, here is my quoting you and asking for a definition:

["I don't like that state of affairs, but I do like the possibility that this issue dissolves a framework of nationalistic arabophobia at least a little."

>>OK. Explain what you mean by "nationalistic Arabophobia," who exactly partakes in it (by citing examples), and please explain what the framework is.]

I don't see this, nor was it meant to be, an assailing of the term 'framework of nationalistic Aravbophobia,' but rather a request for a delineation of what you meant by the phrase.

pyrrho: "xenophibic fear of "the Arab" is not in fact difficult to imagine or find right now."

>>Look within thyself, son. Remember, I voted for Nader. I haven't personally come in contact with Arabophobes, even on the internet, although i have met a few Islamophobes. But, then, i don't get out much.

[Long quotes and respoinse here]

{pyrrho: "I think the assumption of automatic nationalistic patriotism on behalf of Republicans affects this because the idea in that assumption is a preference for American business, an idea that American business is the best in the world, it can do anything, there really can't be a better choice for big American jobs."

>>I don't know quite what to make of this, other than to say that one needs to adress the realities rather than one's constructs used in place of them.

"the realities" instead of the constructs. In my view we create the constructs to model the reality. I don't know of the direct path to reality you argue for. Perhaps that's not reality you speak of but rather just "your view".}

No, the construct supplied here is simply false on its face. Republicans are seen on average as pro-business, and hardly caring whether business profits from overseas bus8inesses or not. Remember, they are portrayed as cold-hearted outsourcers. They are thought to outsource because foreign business is thought to be able to do the job azt less cost.

\As for the philosophy, once again you want us to belive in some sort of Habermasian universe where no one's opinion (or construct) is any better than anyone else's. You excuse, once again, failing to get to the reality of the situation with the notion that no one CAN get to the reality of the situation.

Time to get beyond Philosophy 101.

The question of what people actually think about Republicans, for instance, is CERTAINLY amenable to research. One need not, and MUST not be happy with a construct used in place of that research.

pyrrho: "No, I'm not going to go prove people have that opinion about them... frankly, I long for a day people don't have it. If that's now, great, but no, not yet."

>>And I long for the day when I can safely eat the orange sylphs which flit about the upper edges of my room, but i am not about to prove to you that they are poisonous. If they become less so today, great, but no, not yet.

And don't go telling me that your construct of reality, which doesn't contain these orange sylphs (or, in fact, the other coloured ones) is just my construct. that would be just YOUR construct. And don't try to make muc of the fact that I onely can see these sylphs under certain conditions, usually having to do with LSD.

I can say anything i weant to with out evidence or proof, without any logical argument. It is my right as an anti-intellectual, after all.

btw, who do you know, or heard about, who said that we can know that iraq had nothing to do with 911, but since they are Arabs (except, of course, the Kurds), and Arabs are pretty much the same, we should attack them anyway? You must live in a weird part of the country. I just never heard that one.

[pyrrho]

>i did noitice that you sneak in the old lie about iraq having something to do w3ith 9121 or not again.

it's an old lie to mention that Iraq did or did not have something to do with 9-11? huh?

whatever, this is what I mean about answering your questions, you never say, "ah, now I understand the definition" you just try to peak a weak leg and start sawing.

it's clear as day what I meant by "arabophobia" and I never said it was the only cause, which you are now wondering if I would please demonstrate.

Arabophobia is a factor, that's my claim, and I've defined it loosely, which you refused to do (though now you said you did have a definition of your own, but less specific). Well I told you mine is loose, maybe your definition for "arabophobia" would be a better one.

I'm willing to find the best definition of ababophobia and explore the impact on this ports issue... but I'm not willing to play gotcha with definitions we assemble in order to have a conversation on the topic.