Security Risk or Anti-Arab Backlash

[nbcrusader]

i suppose this is indicative of the situation the Bushies have put themselves in.

when you engage in rabid demagogury and the creation of mysterious boogeymen driving around in vans filled with chemical weapons in new jersey neighborhoods in order to drum up support for a war who's rationale was exceedingly dubious at best, how surprised can you be when this sort of thing comes back to bite you in the ass by very people you've scared into voting for you?

they made an enemy out of a caricature, and now they want the caricature to examine the ports?

"tone-deaf" doesn't even get close to describing the situation.

The caricature of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades. The demagogury has been tapped into repreatedly over the years by different groups for different purposes.

Security at the ports will not be affected by ownership.

 

[Irvine511]

The caricature of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades. The demagogury has been tapped into repreatedly over the years by different groups for different purposes.

Security at the ports will not be affected by ownership.

oh come on. the "evil Arab" of post-2001 is vastly different from 1979.

can you really argue that the "evil Arab" wasn't made immeasurably more tangible first by 9-11, and then by the response, and then the Patriot Act, and then racial profiling at airports, and then using 9-11 as an excuse to invade an Arab country?

can you name another administration that has so willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype to justify its policies?

i still have no real opinions about whether or not this poses a security risk, but the Bushies have made their bed.

now they can lie in it.

 

[nbcrusader]

oh come on. the "evil Arab" of post-2001 is vastly different from 1979.

can you really argue that the "evil Arab" wasn't made immeasurably more tangible first by 9-11, and then by the response, and then the Patriot Act, and then racial profiling at airports, and then using 9-11 as an excuse to invade an Arab country?

can you name another administration that has so willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype to justify its policies?

i still have no real opinions about whether or not this poses a security risk, but the Bushies have made their bed.

now they can lie in it.

Vastly different caricature? Not at all. The primary difference was in the 70's, the "evil Arab" was that person over in Middle East - 9/11 just brought the image to our own shores, essentially a re-emergence of the old image.

I'd like you to give some examples of how the current administration has "willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype" to justify policies. The Adminstration has made efforts to counter public perceptions regarding Islam - including the recent condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons. The US has enemies - we see video and hear audio testifying to the fact we have enemies. I'd like to see how, beyond the reasonable response to self declared ememies the Administration so blatantly uses stereotypes to further the agenda items you list.

 

[Irvine511]

Vastly different caricature? Not at all. The primary difference was in the 70's, the "evil Arab" was that person over in Middle East - 9/11 just brought the image to our own shores, essentially a re-emergence of the old image.

you've just proved my point, as bolded above.

it's here, it's no longer abstract. Mohammad is coming to get you!

I'd like you to give some examples of how the current administration has "willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype" to justify policies. The Adminstration has made efforts to counter public perceptions regarding Islam - including the recent condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons. The US has enemies - we see video and hear audio testifying to the fact we have enemies. I'd like to see how, beyond the reasonable response to self declared ememies the Administration so blatantly uses stereotypes to further the agenda items you list.

as you've noted, this stereotype of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades, so explicit words aren't necessary as they are latent in the American -- indeed, Western -- imagination and need little prompting to invoke fear in the minds of your average American, especially after watching airplanes fly into towers on television.

i would say that the invasion of an Arab country that had nothing to do with the attacks was a wonderful way to blur necessary distinctions between different Arab countries and to say, essentially, and for the ease of the persecution of the vague GWOT, "see, they're all the same."

 

[verte76]

For the record, Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians or members of ethnic groups related to Persians.

 

[nbcrusader]

as you've noted, this stereotype of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades, so explicit words aren't necessary as they are latent in the American -- indeed, Western -- imagination and need little prompting to invoke fear in the minds of your average American, especially after watching airplanes fly into towers on television.

I agree. It is quite different, however, from the Administration willfully and wantonly tossing around the "evil Arab" stereotype.

 

[nbcrusader]

For the record, Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians or members of ethnic groups related to Persians.

Caricatures and stereotypes are not built on factual details

 

[Irvine511]

I agree. It is quite different, however, from the Administration willfully and wantonly tossing around the "evil Arab" stereotype.

then a correction: they've willfully and wantonly preyed upon the "evil Arab" stereotype in order to scare up public support for dubious policies.

need we delve into the horribly ironic shootings of Sikhs after 9-11?

 

[nbcrusader]

then a correction: they've willfully and wantonly preyed upon the "evil Arab" stereotype in order to scare up public support for dubious policies.

need we delve into the horribly ironic shootings of Sikhs after 9-11?

Was this generated, caused or conducted by the Administration? I know you are not fond of the Adminstration, but there should be some direct causal connection between these statements.

 

[Irvine511]

Was this generated, caused or conducted by the Administration? I know you are not fond of the Adminstration, but there should be some direct causal connection between these statements.

WMDs seem to be fine in the hands of North Koreans, but not in the hands of Iraqis.

not even invisible weapons.

 

[Carek1230]

I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable having ANY foreign owned company purchasing and/or running our US Ports. Why can't US Owned conglomerates own and run our Ports? Whether the UAE is a threat or not, I would personally like to see a very in depth investigation done before any decision is made.


Security at the ports will not be affected? I completely disagree. Our ports and surrounding waters are just as vulnerable to infiltration and devastatiion like our skies are/were--i.e. 9/11. I do not want to bear witness to another catastrophe like that in the US ever again.

Why can't our military or government run the ports in the US if there are no US conglomerates willing to buy them up and do the job?

 

[Dreadsox]

Security at the ports will not be affected? I completely disagree. Our ports and surrounding waters are just as vulnerable to infiltration and devastatiion like our skies are/were--i.e. 9/11. I do not want to bear witness to another catastrophe like that in the US ever again.

They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

and as I said earlier....

Since 9/11 we have not enacted the measurements strongly recommended before 9/11.

Ports are already our most vulnerable point.

 

[verte76]

All matters of national pride aside, this doesn't seem like a security risk.

 

[nbcrusader]

They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

and as I said earlier....

Since 9/11 we have not enacted the measurements strongly recommended before 9/11.

Ports are already our most vulnerable point.

Also, another element missing from the equation is that the foreign company will not be operating the entire port (of those subject to the contracts), just a small portion.

 

[verte76]

Also, another element missing from the equation is that the foreign company will not be operating the entire port (of those subject to the contracts), just a small portion.

Good point.

 

[Irvine511]

They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

and as I said earlier....

Since 9/11 we have not enacted the measurements strongly recommended before 9/11.

Ports are already our most vulnerable point.

good call.

it does seem like this is the real issue.

 

[Se7en]

did anyone mention that scott mclellan admitted that president bush learned of the sale through u.s. news media outlets?

 

[Irvine511]

did anyone mention that scott mclellan admitted that president bush learned of the sale through u.s. news media outlets?

he takes the security of our country very seriously.

 

[nbcrusader]

More wiretaps!!!

 

[nbcrusader]

Political Hay???

Ports Debate Gives Democrats Opportunity

The New York Democrat is a potential presidential contender in 2008, but in this case her criticism was no match for the brisk, one- sentence letter that North Carolina Republican Rep. Sue Myrick dispatched to the White House. "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just no, but hell no," she wrote to a president from her own party.

"Evil Arabs? Then, 'hell no!'"

 

[Justin24]

LOL

 

[AliEnvy]

They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

Did anyone watch 60 Minutes tonight? Apparently Port security (of the facilities themselves, not cargo) IS the operator's responsibility and is usually outsourced to rent-a-cop companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1344473.shtml

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't really see what the problem is. In the end the security of your ports IS your governments responsibility. If that is lax, or the law currently has it outsourced to rent-a-cops or whatever, fight against THAT.

Otherwise, I agree that this is a caricature/fear coming back to bite Bush in the arse, and I'm disappointed that the Democrats are playing up to it rather than being mature about it.

The ownership of the ports shouldn't matter at all. It's the security. Don't confuse the two. There's no reason why this ownership change should, could or would change a thing, and if there's a fear that it will, well whats the problem? It's a seperate argument isn't it????

 

[AliEnvy]

The ownership of the ports shouldn't matter at all. It's the security. Don't confuse the two.

Agreed. But the whole ownership issue has brought to new light some very real concerns that question the appropriate jurisdiction of certain aspects of security that are, at best, lax and vulnerable (regardless of ownership).

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Agreed. But the whole ownership issue has brought to new light some very real concerns that question the appropriate jurisdiction of certain aspects of security that are, at best, lax and vulnerable (regardless of ownership).

Well, that right there is the problem. The ports can be owned by the DPRK if the security is tight enough. That's the outcome everyone should be gunning for, forget this UAE shit, thats just hysteria.