Posted on 02/24/2006 10:18:56 PM PST by Reagan Man
“This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven’t seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami,” wails a keening David Brooks, “a nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here.”
The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation’s splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants, “The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”
But irrelevant to whom?
Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Britain to the United Arab Emirates?
Our cosmopolitan Mr. Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the Davos world of the Global Economy where nationality does not matter and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.
“God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr,” snorts Brooks, “He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill.”
To Brooks there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider’s deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.
But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling.
Yep, the old America lives.
Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF, Identify-Friend-or-Foe radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.
But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in ethnic prejudice?
Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.
In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for “Death to America!” in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.
As Mother Church has a “preferential option” for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America’s preferential option for the cousins.
Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not.
The folks from Dubai may detest the 9/11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.
Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so, Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.
Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?
The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House? Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9/11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:
“How do you think Bubba will react when he’s told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore where, in Tom Clancy’s ‘Sum of All Fears,’ Arab terrorists smuggle in an a-bomb and detonate it?”
Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.
Now this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.
As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep. Don’t like Arabs.
Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America’s friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide who engineered this latest debacle.
Don't forget Patsy's protectionism in all of this. The Democrats are only on this bandwagon because the unions think it's a bad deal for them.
Then what is Patsy's problem?
I don't understand!
Poor pat must be very conflicted over this issue. He's never met an Arab he didn't like but his hatred of President Bush is off the charts.
Here it is again.
say what?
"Negotiating provisions of the port deal."
I heard in the news today that one important objection was that the deal called for records NOT to be kept in American but in the UAE. The report said that typically records are kept in the country with the port. Do you have any information/thoughts on this?
I would rather have all documents kept in the US for security concerns. As far as thoughts, it would appear that the deal was one sided in favor of the UAE. IT looks like we gave away the store in this deal for the sake of our "friendship" with the UAE.
If you never thought you'd live to see the day, you should be thinking more. Seriously.
If you think the job of the government is to panic over everything that is "potentially" dangerous, that would explain your reaction here.
I have employed hyperbole in my comments, but it isn't far off from what people are saying about this deal.
Port control has been a continuum of foreign operational takeover for literally decades, even up to this deal. While I'm certain there have been complaints about this, and I know people were rightly up in arms about a known adversary China having control of our ports last year, it wasn't until a friendly arab nation's port company offered to buy out the stockholders of another foreign company running our ports.
And when asked why people objected to one foreign company taking over for another, most respondents used a variation of the "well, we can't have arabs running our ports".
Your responses have been to say that because muslims flew planes into our buildings, we couldn't trust any of them. Well, if every muslim is to be not just suspected of terrorism, but treated as if they are a terrorist (I don't know how else to characterize banning them from making a purchase of a foreign company other than that we want to treat them as if they are already criminals), then it isn't far off to suggest we should simply deport them.
Because if having DP World be the board in charge of the board (P&O) which is in charge of the U.S. companies that own leases to operate our ports is simply too great a risk because DP World's directors are muslims and they can be replaced by arabs who run the UAE, how much more risky is it to allow muslims (who like rattlesnakes according to you are presumed to be dangerous) live, work, and threaten us every day?
Of course you won't say that, and you will deny thinking that. I don't think you really think that, but I don't know -- I just know that your comments about rattlesnakes and pit bulls would logically lead one to conclude that you believe we would be safer if no muslims were present in our country.
I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted what you said, in fact I would be happy to hear that you thought no such thing, and that your sole concern was to simply make sure that there are no security issues.
It just sounded to me like you PRESUMED there were security issues simply because muslims were involved.
Friendly "Arab" nation seems to intentionally omit the word "islamic" (dominated) nation. "Arab" is far too generic a term to properly address this national security debate, because millions of Arabs are Christians who are being oppressed by the majority muslims. In fact, the word "friendly" itself can be used only in the sense they are not beheading Americans and Westerners, but to create the notion that any islamic government are our real "friends" is the biggest and most damnable lie about this whole fiasco.
It takes a long, long time and a great many similarities and commonalities for nations to be "friends", as in being able to completely trust one another, help one another, stand by one another at all times, and fight for one another if necessary. There is no such history between the two nations beyond the recent UAE "cooperation" with the U.S. in the our wot. "Friends" also implies similar cultural, social, economic, government and religious ways, none of which the U.S. and the UAE have in common. So we temporarily "tolerate" each other and use each other; them for money, protection and military hardware, us for having a little help in the WOT.
To call this islamic sheikdom that gives its people no say whatsoever in government, who openly hates Israel, who supplied the 9/11 attackers with money and passports, and who are suspected of turning a blind eye to ships using their ports and waters to bring nuclear materials to Iran, the description of "friend" is obviously just a made up crock of b.s. in support of President Bush's stance. They are NOT our 'friends'.
The UK are our friends. Australia are our friends. Italy and Canada (and others) our our friends. They are countries that take the same general world view as America, and are not at odds with our form of government and our majority religious belief, Christianity. The world view of America and our real friends is that democracy is the answer to establishing world peace, national stability and economic prosperity. The world view of the UAE is that islam and mohammed's word is the way to govern the earth. SCREW THAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.