Could it be that if not for the word "Dubai" in the name of the company, this would never have been an issue?

Or send an urgent post to Bin Laden and Dubai that expresses our sohpisticated understanding of their investment needs. We could then inquire whether they'd be willing to invest in our airports infrastructure and we'll keep the racist masses from finding out about it...

Or send an urgent post to Bin Laden and Dubai that expresses our sohpisticated understanding of their investment needs.

That's libelous.

The UAE is as much of an ally to the U.S. as is Pakistan, another useful nation with major problems.

You can't train an animal by punishing it no matter what it does - it just gets mean.

Similarly, if we treat our friends and enemies in the same way, we'll end up with no friends.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 10, 2006 12:02 PM

Palm:

It's called Emirates Air and penetrates our security every day. Your ignorance is typical.

Michael:

The funny thing is a libertarian like Palmcroift thinking it publishes only others to get rid of free trade.

You would think if there was any consistency here, the "American Ports for Americans" crowd would now be going after China for their contract with the Port of Long Beach, because they actually are a country who have had their military people make threatening noises towards the U.S. But the only port removal matter anyone in Washington will be dealing with now that the frenzy is over will be is unplugging their iPod from their computer.

mike

they arent our friends. we coddle small political elites in places like the UAE and Pakistan. personally, i think thats fine but to suggest that this port fiasco is going to alienate the "arab street", as they say, is laughable. lets be honest about who we are talking about. the average citizen of these countries doesnt like the idea that their govts' are "useful" to us. in short, they hate our guts. letting this port deal go through will do zip, zilch, and zero to improve the reputation of the US anywhere in the middle east. what it will do is help ensure future cooperation from the government of the UAE in the war on terror. i agree there.

Brian:

Yes, protectionism won't alienate the Arab street, just limit economic growth and so fuel that street.

its limited economic growth that fuels the their rage (curiously marxist thinking, btw)? let me get this straight....joe blow who is worried, rightly or not, about the ports is a drooling racist neanderthal but the arab street is just economically frustrated?

oj, that street is fueled by social pathologies that, unfortunately, wont be solved by Mammon.

According to this news poll it would appear we dislike muslims the more we get to know them.

"According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today"

In other words dislike of Muslims and their "lifestyle" choices are trending south even though it is 4 years after 9/11. Maybe it's time for some vigorous benign neglect.

h-man

c'mon...whats not to like about muslims? the free market will solve all the worlds problems. just relax, ok.

Brian:

The pathology is unemployment.

Yes, engaging Arabs in free trade & stoking them towards economic prosperity won't solve all our problems so SCREW IT!

We hated blacks too when we segregated them.

Who ever said any of this, or either side of the arguments has anything to do with the "Arab Street?" Who gives a damn about the "Arab Street." It's a nonentity worked by pushbuttons (propaganda) pushed by the worst elements in Islam.

Surely you haven't forgotten that last month's hysteria was the Arab Street?

And this month's hysteria is Arab port managment.

No wonder we let their planes in, since apparently we won't let them use either streets or ports.

And don't forget that Cheney shot a man in the back.