Posted on 03/15/2006 8:54:02 AM PST by clawrence3
Racism is distrusting someone because of his genetic ethnic type, not because of culture or religion. Not saying that the latter is necessarily justified in all cases, but it's not the same thing as racism.
As for instantly changing their attitude, no - but it was slowly changing up until this deal falling through and MORE IMPORTANTLY the actions out of UAE were different and cooperative with the U.S. (if nothing else because they didn't want to get invaded next), even if the attitude was not 100% with us.
You seem to be acknowledging that their cooperation with us has likely been purely for tactical reasons. No doubt you've heard the phrase "Keep your enemies closer" before. It's certainly been posted around here enough times in order to justify such things as Bush's bizarre support for Mahmoud Abbas, his family's cozy relationship with the Clintons, and his claims that Russia really is an ally in the WOT. If it's applicable to his actions, it can be applicable to the UAE's as well.
So this entire CFIUS review process was over one security guard at one terminal? Cripes, why didn't we just appoint our own security guard and be done with it?
The four-page offer, titled "Proposed Solution to the DP World Issue," promised to give the Department of Homeland Security nearly complete say over the company's U.S. corporate affairs and to install "state-of-the-art radiation-detection and gamma-ray inspection devices" at company expense at all current and future DP World-managed ports overseas. Experts estimate that step alone could have cost DP World as much as $100 million, though some ports where DP World operates already have some radiation-detection devices.
Interesting, although I don't know why that's their job, seeing as how we're not outsourcing security to them, according to Bush. I would think our own government should be the ones responsible for installing the detectors. But if Bush is wrong, it makes me wonder what other aspects of port security are expected to be handled by port operators. That's why I'm not taking his side on this. Too many unresolved issues not being addressed forthrightly by the administration.
Overseas?
So in that case, what does that have to with this deal? You said at #63 that you hoped the new terminal operators (I presume you mean here in the U.S.) would be willing to take the same precautions DPW was willing to take. Personally, I would hope that any port we trade with has such precautions in place, and I'd hope that we'd be willing to use our trade policy to heavily encourage that. But that's a separate matter from who's running port operations here.
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.