March 9, 2006
NEVER STUPIDER:
Chauvinism in the US (Daily Telegraph, 09/03/2006)
The case against the Dubai company is that it is part of the Muslim world, the chief source of global terror. This crude piece of chauvinism fails to distinguish between a hostile Islamic state, such as Iran, and one that is a staunch ally of Washington in a strategically crucial region.Through tourism, transport and business, Dubai is preparing for the day when its oil runs out. Such foresight should be welcomed, not penalised. To block DP World from inheriting P&O assets in the six ports would be highly damaging to America's reputation in a region where it needs all the friends it can get.
Such strategic considerations cut little ice with the likes of Republican House Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis and Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, both of whom are seeking re-election in November. They reflect a mindset in America that last year put paid to a Chinese bid for the oil company Unocal, and in 2002 led to tariffs on imported steel and a huge increase in agricultural subsidies.
Rather than explaining the benefits of globalisation - whether Asian purchases of US Treasury bonds or the pre-eminence of Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil or General Motors - these short-sighted politicians are pandering to a protectionist impulse strengthened by bogus security concerns.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2006 10:11 AM
" To block DP World from inheriting P&O assets in the six ports would be highly damaging to America's reputation in a region where it needs all the friends it can get."
Countries have no friends, just interests. It's not in our best interests to turn over ports to what is essentially part of a theocratic political power bent on world domination. Kill all their leaders convert the rest to Christianity and then we'll talk about it.
Posted by: NC3 at March 9, 2006 10:54 AMNope, you don't sound stupid at all....
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 10:59 AMStupid? Like I said, no friends, only interests...
Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.
As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html
Yes, it should. On what basis can the xenoophobes complain about anti-American protectionist practices abroad after taking anti-foreigner actions themselves? The Smoot can't call the Hawley black.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 11:35 AMIt may not be stupid, but it is embarassing that our elected officials are showing themselves to be this uninformed and foolish.
Posted by: erp at March 9, 2006 11:38 AMWell I must agree with NC3 that countries do not have friendships, only mutual interests. Anyone above the age of 15 should be able to understand that.
"To block DP World from inheriting P&O assets in the six ports would be highly damaging to America's reputation in a region where it needs all the friends it can get."
Really? Its difficult to imagine how our reputation could sink any further. If the port deal is a good thing than by all means proceed but please stop the silly talk about making buddies in the Middle East.
And every day, day after day, Egypt Air keeps flying in and out of NYC.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 9, 2006 11:43 AMNot to mention American Airlines, which transported the Shoe Bomber, and all the airlines that hosted the 9-11 hijackers.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 11:49 AM"2002 led to tariffs on imported steel and a huge increase in agricultural subsidies"
Regarding protectionism I guess Bush can dish it out, but can't take it.
"staunch ally of Washington"
How staunch? We have a shortage of tranlators in Iraq, are they helping out with that?
Posted by: h-man at March 9, 2006 12:16 PM
Terrorist financing is not restricted to the Saudis. A list of financial companies named by the Bush administration as financiers of Al-Qaeda, reveals involvement of prominent Arab individuals from several countries in the Middle East. One example of such company is the Al Taqwa bank. Among the bank's shareholders are members of the prominent Khalifeh family of the UAE, the UAE's grand mufti and his family members, members of the Kuwaiti royal family, members of the Bin Laden family, a prominent leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood group and several members of Hamas. The Italian anti-terrorist agency claimed that Al Taqwa handled financing for a number of Arab and Islamic political and militant groups, including groups such as Hamas, the PLO, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and the Egyptian Gama'a al-Islamiya, as well as former Afghan mujahedin in bin Laden's camps.
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
Nope, nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: NC3 at March 9, 2006 12:16 PMI agree that the security concerns about this issue are just silly - but isn't there something to be said of hitting Arab bigwigs in the pocketbook. These guys are the Arab superstars and the conductors of Arab civilization, they have the power and the responsibility to change Arab culture.
Is there nothing to gain from telling them that it is their responsibility to change the direction of their own culture, and if they can't get their civilization in shape then they can't be allowed to benefit from the fact that our civilization is peaceful and productive?
Posted by: Shelton at March 9, 2006 12:39 PMShelton:
Punishing capitalism because we're racists teaches them what lesson?
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 12:47 PMLet's try to keep the big picture in mind here.
The fact is that the UAE provides significant logistical support for U.S. air and naval assets in the Gulf. In the event of a "closing" of the Straits of Hormuz, their port facilities would provide a staging area for convoys moving through the Straits under protection, and their land connection (Fujairah to Jebel Ali) would be vital. They also provide significant cooperation with our intelligence services.
The annoying thing about this whole situation is that, in the name of cheap demagogery, we might destroy real strategic cooperation with a friendly Arab government over the totally spurious question of alleged (because the Coast Guard is still responsible for security) access to a few terminal buildings in ports in the U.S.
Posted by: HT at March 9, 2006 12:51 PMNC3:
Look at the American companies that finance the Chinese military.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 12:54 PMh:
He's not just taking it he's throwing it back in your faces.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 12:55 PMMy sympathy for the Bush Administration is very limited because the political capital Bush could have used to smooth this deal was squandered by the same Bush Administration over the preceeding years. Were the DHS not such a failure, Bush could have easily used that success to bridge here. Instead, the DHS serves as an example of why to not trust the executive on such matters.
What's very amusing about this is that Mr. Judd is making the classic Libertarian Party mistake, that everyone will read the detailed policy analysis and come to the logical and reasonable conclusion indicated by the data. Long term, yes, the citizenry drifts toward the correct decisions. But not short term. OJ sounds exactly like the standard libertarian ideolog who can't understand why anything other than logical deduction matters.
AOG:
To the contrary, I don't think anyone cares about anything except that they're Arabs. The facts make no difference. But the point is the Administration can just ignore the whining because there's no real issue here, attention spans are so short, and there's no legislative solution. Don't worry about winning a trivial question politically, just win it in fact.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 1:14 PMits sad to see the bushies borrow so shamelessly from the democrat's playbook.
dont you dare disagree with this administration's policies! you must all be racists!
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2006 1:18 PMRacist is as racist does.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 1:22 PMBrian -
If the deal makes business sense and does not negatively effect homeland security then what other explanation is there for opposition to the deal?
Posted by: AWW at March 9, 2006 1:24 PMlol. yeah, that about settles it for me.
the reaction to the port deal may not be rational but it is not racist. again, its sad to see the right stoop so low.
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2006 1:25 PMBrian:
No one who knows anything about the deal or the ports thinks there's even a potential security concern, so there's nothing but racism/bigotry/whatever involved.
At least the Left is openly opposed to free trade and privatization.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 1:28 PMthen what the admnistration needs to do is step to the plate for once and defend itself. calling people racists (who for some crazy reason associate terrorism with the arab world) isnt good enough.
dont like bush' immigration policy (or lack thereof)? you hate mexicans.
think the arab port deal is a bad idea. youre not just misinformed, you also hate arabs.
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2006 1:39 PMBrian:
It's defended itself--there is, as you say, no rational security objection to the port deal. To continue to object irrationally is simply racist.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 1:45 PMi suppose opposing free trade and privitzation is racist too? i thought it was sexist.
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2006 1:46 PMNo, it's Leftist, but the racists are playing into Leftist hands here.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 2:03 PM"I don't think anyone cares about anything except that they are Arabs"
As NC3 showed above they are a particular type of Arab, that had no compunctions with dealing with Al Qaeda, while BIN LADEN WAS ALREADY A WANTED MAN. Secondly you yourself have stated that Pakistan should be treated differently than India regarding nuclear weapons, is that racist? (I'll answer that question, no it's not, but instead it is based on actions and risks that India is willing to take to help the US) The only thing I'm telling you is Bush should put up or shut up.
My question is directly related to the issue of whether UAE is really a "staunch" ally or if this deal is merely a quid pro quo for their renting an Airport to us.
HT
We could take all the sh*t if we wanted it so the stuff you're talking about is mere real estate.
There is alot of talk about "allies", which is just talk. Where are the troops in Iraq, from UAE, Jordan, Turkey?
AWW
They'll become our allies, when they have to. Allowing commerce to proceed unhindered is to prolong this conflict in Iraq longer than is necessary.
OJ
Were there charges of racism when Bush signed on to the steel tariffs?
To the contrary, I don't think anyone cares about anything except that they're Arabs. The facts make no difference.To the contrary, that's not to the contrary. That was, in fact, precisely the lead up to my point, which is that
- You are expecting facts and logic to carry the day against that, just like a libertarian. Facts only work long term, not inside a PR spin cycle.
- Had the DHS done a good enough job to have a positive reputation, Bush's "trust me" would have worked. It didn't work because DHS and other domestic security efforts are widely considered jokes.
The way to overcome this kind of visceral reaction is to build credibility elsewhere and then cash it in when needed. This is the downside to the Bush Administration's lack of using the bully pulpit.
There's one big difference between the Reds and the Islamofascists OJ. The Reds care about mutually assured destruction. But of course you are right about the US consumer financing our enemy in mainland China. We should not be doing it as it would seem that liberal democracy doesn't necessarily follow boat loads of dollars as we were assured it would.
So, let's just forget about the Islamist enemy then? Kill them with kindness. Bare our throats to show them how much we trust them? Don't you know they take their Koran literally? What will we say one day; "we knew he was a snake when we picked him up"?
Posted by: NC3 at March 9, 2006 2:42 PMAOG:
No one has credibility to overcome racism--it's too visceral.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 2:45 PMN:
Ah, a truism: al Qaeda shouldn't be put in charge of port security. Of course, that has nothing to do with Dubai's contracts.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 2:48 PMh:
we had no compunctions about dealing with the islamicists when it served our purposes and we supported the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. When we asked the UAE to change it did.
Reagan's auto quotas were, of course, driven by racism, but back then we feared the Yellow Menace.
The UAE shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons either and we should attack China's nuclear force, but Pakistani and Chinese shipping companies aren't a threat to port security.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 2:53 PMAs Tom Wall remarked in the "SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE ADULT, MAY AS WELL BE THE POTUS" thread:
It's not like the UAE is buying the ports proper. They won't build training camps, Consulates, or house terrorists. Above all they are not in charge of security so why such an uproar? As Tom Clancy remarked if terrorists want to sneak bombs into the US they can hide them in bales of marijuana. No point in spending 6+ Billion dollars.
I continue to find that the definitive position on the ports deal. If Dubai wanted to help terrorists, why not just spend a billion dollars smuggling stuff in directly, and save a lot of money ?
They seem to be fiscally prudent enough to reach that conclusion.
NC3:
But of course you are right about the US consumer financing our enemy in mainland China. We should not be doing it as it would seem that liberal democracy doesn't necessarily follow boat loads of dollars as we were assured it would.
China isn't an enemy of the U.S.
They are a rival, and have an unpleasant and ultimately doomed form of government, but it's not a given that China and America will eventually throw down - particularly if we play it smart.
Mainland China hasn't become a liberal democracy yet, but the coastal regions' explosive growth HAS forced the central government to change in ways that they'd prefer not to, and Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds in China.
For reasons that Orrin posts about all the time, Christianity and Communism have a hard time co-existing.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that American trade with China is forcing them to change in ways that will ultimately benefit us, even if slowly.
So, let's just forget about the Islamist enemy then? Kill them with kindness.
We're not at war with Islam either, at least not actively.
While it's true that our culture is crushing theirs, our military actions are confined to fighting the fundamentalist Islamofascist factions of Islam, and many Muslims couldn't care less about that wing of their religion.
Therefore, there's plenty of upside to rewarding Islamic societies that act as we wish them to, such as those of the UAE, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen, and reminding the average nonfundamentalist Muslim that there are rewards to being a friend of America.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 9, 2006 3:17 PM
Except that China is an enemy.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 3:21 PMYeah, an enemy that doesn't threaten us*, can't beat us, that taxes their own people to send us subsidized goods, and then finances purchase of those goods on E-Z terms...
If only we had more "enemies" like China.
* Except over Taiwan, which is a special case.
at March 9, 2006 3:44 PM
None of our enemies are much threat, that's why we sold the Soviets grain and Hitler pretty much anything he wanted.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 3:55 PMOJ
You are intentionally avoiding the issue, by constantly making reference to port security as Bush himself does. We have approximately 150 thousand troops in Iraq. We get no military aid from UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and what I'm politely trying to tell you is that we will NEVER GET THAT AID, unless those countries have no choice. You can dance around the issue, avoid it, call people racist, but your Sec of State should show at least the gumption to demand quid pro quo for good relations with the US based on American seeing the elbows and a**holes of Arabs moving to finish the Iraqi occupation.
They will tell America to go to h*ll and you'll be standing here asking where our "staunch" allies went. I don't care about UAE's retirement fund, but if it's important to them, I would suggest they do more than they have. Bring us Zarquari's head then we'll talk. Sorry if I sound too demanding, but since they've in fact done nil I think it is pathetic to be giving Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and others an option to stand on the sidelines. What did Bush say, you're with us or against us.
h:
What did the French give us for defeating Hitler & the USSR? The finger.
We aren't Reforming the Middle East because we're being paid to, but because it's what America does.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 4:19 PMSo great, now our standard of behavior for an ally is France. Well then we could at least tell France that they could not own and operate our ports for financial gain.
Posted by: h-man at March 9, 2006 4:36 PMh:
Exactly. nativism/isolationism/protectionism it all goes hand in hand--it just isn't American.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 4:45 PMBy the way since you're on the racist kick again, have you ever hear of the term "bigotry of low expectations".
Since obviously there will be no reform of Islam or Arabs unless it is expected of them, how have you worked yourself into the position of protecting the status quo of, for instance, UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The UAE is Reforming in precisely the way we want it to. Isolating ourselves from them, stifling their economic diversification, and indulgung in Arab hatred is counterproductive. If you treat them like an enemy why shouldn't their young men consider us an enemy?
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 5:06 PMMr. Judd;
I fail to see what you are objecting to. You have maintained elsewhere that electability is first with ideological purity a distant second. It seems to me that in this matter, the GOP in Congress is doing exactly as you have advised, getting on the 70% side of an issue without regard to the principles involved in order to further their electoral success. Based on your view of properly run political parties, why should they not throw facts and principles to the wind in order to get on the right side of the voters?
AOG:
The GOP has the racists and xenophobes on its side--they won't be there any more firmly now. It has to worry about the implications for business of intervening in a private deal and setting an example of both protectionism and nationalization.
But, then, you aren't really under the impression this has strenthened the party politically, are you?
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 11:26 PMNo, but that's basically the same argument I used against the steel tarrifs, an argument you mocked at the time. I couldn't resist the chance at some payback.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 10, 2006 12:08 AMAOG:
Except that the steel tariffs did strengthen the party politically and the nation as a matter of policy, winning Fast Track authority.
On this issue they're hurting themselves, the country and the world.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2006 7:36 AM