Obama Opposed the Dubai Ports Deal

[corplinx]

The Dubai ports deal was the single largest exploitation of xenophobia and bigotry I have seen by american politicians this century. How come Barack Obama was on the bandwagon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy
The controversy pertained to management contracts of six major United States ports. The purchaser was DP World (DPW), a state-owned company in the UAE. The contracts had already been foreign-owned, by Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm taken over by DPW (completed in March 2006).

This is also one of those foreign economic policy litmus tests. When our congress sand-bagged the DPW deal, it sent out a message to foreign investors who skin might be the wrong shadethat they may be made the whipping boy of the day if congress thinks it can make the chief executive look weak on national security by portraying all of your ilk as terrorists.

[Sefarst]

If I recall correctly, this was a fiasco right around the same time all the port security and anti-immigration folks were foaming at the mouth over a few studies that had come out. I think Lou Dobbs was the one that really played this up (though others were guilty as well).

Ultimately, it probably wasn't a good stand to take, but there was so much guilt to go around in this case that I don't think you should hold it against Obama.

PS: While reading the wikipedia entry: "
Those who expressed opposition to the deal included: The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times), Michael Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage), Lindsey Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham), The New Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic), The John Birch Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society), Sean Hannity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-0), Lou Dobbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-1), Laura Ingraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham); Bill Frist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist) and Hillary Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-2), prominent politicians from two different parties; Bob Menendez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Menendez), John Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibson_%28media_host%29) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-3), Jon Corzine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine), and Peter King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-4). Senator Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) stated his opposition to the deal[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-5). So did Senators Carl Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#_note-6) and John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry)."

You OP should include Hillary Clinton as one of the bandwagoners as well.

[corplinx]

You OP should include Hillary Clinton as one of the bandwagoners as well.

As usual, Hillary played both sides. :)

And no, I don't think the excuse that there were lots of people acting wrong-headed doesn't make it okay. So my question is was Mr. Obama in the camp of the crypto-racists or was he just another one of the political opportunists willing to sell out the UAE to look good on TV? Neither of these groups is a nice one to be in.

[Kaylee]

Sorry, I still don't think that was a bad call.

What's wrong with requiring sensitive jobs to be handled by citizens? One could argue that the work being handled is an extension of army responsibilities.

I would have the same response if the company had been owned by Europeans also.

ETA: I see that the job was being originally handled by a British owned company, but I think that was a bad call also -- given the nature of the work. No disrespect to the British posting here -- but I think it makes just about as much sense to do that as it would for any country to directly outsource parts of their military responsibilities to another country.

[corplinx]

I would have the same response if the company had been owned by Europeans also.

It was owned by Europeans. You didn't care until the brown people bought the European company.

[Kaylee]

It was owned by Europeans. You didn't care until the brown people bought the European company.

I edited my post while you were posting yours.

Speaking for myself, I didn't know anything about this until it was reported in the papers. Was that the motivation of the people who did the reporting? Perhaps. But it still doesn't change my opinion.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's yet another non post from corplinx who asserts there must be something bad about stance while ignoring the reasonable reasons about it.

Hmm.

Until we know his actual motivaiton, or words, isn't this thread.. pointlesS?

[ZenFountain]

Ever wonder why only two presidents in history have been elected directly from congress (Harding and JFK)?

[NeoRicen]

Ever wonder why only two presidents in history have been elected directly from congress (Harding and JFK)?
Well, no matter what happens now the next President will be on that list. All the candidates are current Senators. This will probably neutralize any effect a voting record will have.

[Cincinnatus]

What a shock obama opposing something bush was for.

obama's figured out opposing everything bush does creates lusty liberal voters.

I'm sure a few liberal men/women on this site want to top him off.

[Drysdale]

It was owned by Europeans. You didn't care until the brown people bought the European company.


Well, on this particular issue I happen to agree with Obama.

Until Euro's start hijacking and using our planes as weapons in our cities, buildings,etc. and start terrorism against us in general I think I'm gonna have to give them a pass.

In some cases political correctness needs to take a backseat to security.

[IchabodPlain]

Well, on this particular issue I happen to agree with Obama.

Until Euro's start hijacking and using our planes as weapons in our cities, buildings,etc. and start terrorism against us in general I think I'm gonna have to give them a pass.

In some cases political correctness needs to take a backseat to security.

I was unaware the UAE government is a terrorist group...

[Drysdale]

I was unaware the UAE government is a terrorist group...

Not implying they are. But I think the chance of terrorist infiltration is greater there.

Could very well be wrong on that but I just think the potential could be there moreso than an American or Euro company.

[Sefarst]

Not implying they are. But I think the chance of terrorist infiltration is greater there.

Could very well be wrong on that but I just think the potential could be there moreso than an American or Euro company.
What do you base that idea on?

[Drysdale]

What do you base that idea on?

Well, I'm gonna have the political correct police on me here.
But maybe because they are Muslim? I know not all Muslims are terrorists but are'nt the odds gonna be higher that it would be easier to infiltrate than an American company in particular?

I dont think I'd be real comfortable with a Chinese,Venezeluan or Russian company either among others.

I'd much prefer an American company do it as opposed to a Euro also if the truth be known. It is our borders/ports right? Do our ports have to be outsourced too? When is it enough?

[Sefarst]

Well, I'm gonna have the political correct police on me here.
But maybe because they are Muslim? I know not all Muslims are terrorists but are'nt the odds gonna be higher that it would be easier to infiltrate than an American company in particular?

I dont think I'd be real comfortable with a Chinese,Venezeluan or Russian company either among others.

I'd much prefer an American company do it as opposed to a Euro also if the truth be known. It is our borders/ports right? Do our ports have to be outsourced too? When is it enough?
How would you feel if I told you Muslims are actually in control of a lot of companies that deal with your safety? http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-05-18-muslim-ceos_x.htm

[Kaylee]

How would you feel if I told you Muslims are actually in control of a lot of companies that deal with your safety? http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-05-18-muslim-ceos_x.htm

The Muslims you mentioned are running American countries. I agree with Drysdale that it seems foolish to outsource security work that protects our borders to companies headquartered in foreign countries regardless of their ethnicity.

I would say that is true for any country to do -- not just the USA.

[Sefarst]

The Muslims you mentioned are running American countries. I agree with Drysdale that it seems foolish to outsource security work that protects our borders to companies headquartered in foreign countries regardless of their ethnicity.

I would say that is true for any country to do -- not just the USA.
Then I have to ask, are you against allowing foreigners to buy stock in any American company that might have anything to do with national security?

[corplinx]

I agree with Drysdale that it seems foolish to outsource security work that protects our borders to companies headquartered in foreign countries

Is that just ignorance or based on some kind of evidence? If a company has its HQ in texas with 40 people and 4000 workers in Saudi Arabia, does that qualify?

[Kaylee]

Then I have to ask, are you against allowing foreigners to buy stock in any American company that might have anything to do with national security?

Perhaps it should be capped to less than a certain percentage.

Is that just ignorance or based on some kind of evidence? If a company has its HQ in texas with 40 people and 4000 workers in Saudi Arabia, does that qualify?

I don't think that's likely to be the case with a company whose main service is to secure USA borders.

This is quasi police or military work. What's the big deal in specifying that it be done by American citizens? That is not without precedent. There are many American jobs that require people to pass security checks. Do you think that that should be outlawed? :confused:

[Sefarst]

Perhaps it should be capped to less than a certain percentage.

What percentage? Buying stock often gives voting rights and allows shareholders to choose who the management of a company will be. If American companies need foreign direct investment, how are we going to encourage that with percentage caps?

[Kaylee]

Because I agreed that it would probably be a good idea to limit non-citizen ownership in in publicly traded companies that handle security for our ports -- this automatically means taht I think we should have similar caps in every single publicly traded company in every sector?

That's a big leap. In case you have any questions about that, that is not my opinion.

Do you think that we should privatize our military and police forces and have those responsibilities handled by publicly traded companies?

Should we no longer require security checks for jobs that currently require them now?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, than I'm not surprised that you think it was wrong to cancel the deal with DPW.

If you think that we should keep to the status quo and your answer is no, than I don't see why you don't recognize that port security is a quasi military or police job and it makes sense to have restrictions upon who can do the work.

[corplinx]

DPW wasn't contracted for port security work.

[Kaylee]

DPW wasn't contracted for port security work.
What were they contracted for?

[IchabodPlain]

Not implying they are.

ORLY?
Until Euro's start hijacking and using our planes as weapons in our cities, buildings,etc. and start terrorism against us in general I think I'm gonna have to give them a pass.

When did members of the UAE hijack, or facilitate the hijacking of American planes as weapons into our cities and/or builings etc.? Or is one Muslim indistinguishable from other?

Could very well be wrong on that but I just think the potential could be there moreso than an American or Euro company.

I think you are suffering from an unwillingness to make distinctions.

What were they contracted for?

Management operations, more specifically stevedoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevedore) services. You would think you could read up about an issue before being so solidly for or against it.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48991

[Cleon]

The Dubai ports deal was the single largest exploitation of xenophobia and bigotry I have seen by american politicians this century. How come Barack Obama was on the bandwagon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy


This is also one of those foreign economic policy litmus tests. When our congress sand-bagged the DPW deal, it sent out a message to foreign investors who skin might be the wrong shadethat they may be made the whipping boy of the day if congress thinks it can make the chief executive look weak on national security by portraying all of your ilk as terrorists.

As usual, Hillary played both sides. :)

And no, I don't think the excuse that there were lots of people acting wrong-headed doesn't make it okay. So my question is was Mr. Obama in the camp of the crypto-racists or was he just another one of the political opportunists willing to sell out the UAE to look good on TV? Neither of these groups is a nice one to be in.

I just want to go on record as agreeing 100% with what corplinx says above.


And for my next trick, seven angels will play seven trumpets...

[Kaylee]

Management operations, more specifically stevedoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevedore) services. You would think you could read up about an issue before being so solidly for or against it.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48991
I was being slightly sarcastic in my previous answer. It seems obvious that security responsibilities would be included in the management responsibilities.

[IchabodPlain]

I was being slightly sarcastic in my previous answer. It seems obvious that security responsibilities would be included in the management responsibilities.

Try again.

The deal would transfer the leases for ports in New York, Baltimore and Miami, among others, from a British-owned company to one controlled by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates. But the security of the ports is still the responsibility of Coast Guard and Customs officials. Foreign management of American ports is nothing new, as the role already played by companies from China, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and trading partners in Europe attests.

While critics of the deal have raised the specter that it might open the way to the "infiltration" of American ports by terrorists from the Middle East, the Dubai company would in most cases inherit a work force that is mainly American, with hiring subject to the same regulations as under the current British management.

Among the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations, "who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/politics/23assess.html

[Sefarst]

Because I agreed that it would probably be a good idea to limit non-citizen ownership in in publicly traded companies that handle security for our ports -- this automatically means taht I think we should have similar caps in every single publicly traded company in every sector?

That's a big leap. In case you have any questions about that, that is not my opinion.

I'm glad that's not your opinion. Essentially, our economy is the engine of our country and allowing foreigner to buy up these companies has made other people nervous (look no further than the "OH NO! CHINESE BUSINESS MEN ARE BUYING OUR CORPORATIONS!" and the people who only a few decades ago felt the same way about Japan).

Do you think that we should privatize our military and police forces and have those responsibilities handled by publicly traded companies?

We actually all ready do a lot of that (Blackwater comes to mind), but on the whole, no. But, as I will show, this is irrelevant.

Should we no longer require security checks for jobs that currently require them now?

Opposing the Dubai Ports World deal was not a "security check" because, as has been pointed out, DPW was not performing security on the ports. Bush actually made this point by reminding everyone that, as always, the Coast Guard and US Customs and Border Patrol were in charge of security.

If you think that we should keep to the status quo and your answer is no, than I don't see why you don't recognize that port security is a quasi military or police job and it makes sense to have restrictions upon who can do the work.
Because DPW didn't deal in security, it was an irrelevant issue.

PS: John McCain was in favor of letting the deal pass;)

[Kaylee]

Opposing the Dubai Ports World deal was not a "security check" because, as has been pointed out, DPW was not performing security on the ports. Bush actually made this point by reminding everyone that, as always, the Coast Guard and US Customs and Border Patrol were in charge of security.


Because DPW didn't deal in security, it was an irrelevant issue.

PS: John McCain was in favor of letting the deal pass;)

I disagree with Bush on many issues and I now have another reason not to vote for McCain.

I think it’s undeniable that whoever is managing a company has a huge impact on the security aspects. Also, we are not talking about citizens from a country with a strong tradition of democracy and human rights. Quite the contrary.

I think Congress made a good call.

Here’s some interesting reading:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates
Discrimination in the workplace is common, prospective employers will specify religion, nationality (and even regional origin in some cases) and also specify the sex of required candidates within job advertisements. It is very common to have different pay scales depending on nationality and sex. There are discrimination policies in place also that require certain roles to be filled by UAE nationals.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

The U.S. Department of State notes in its annual report on human rights practices that numerous fundamental practices and policies violate human rights in the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, the UAE does not have democratically elected institutions; citizens do not have the right to change their government or political parties. In certain instances, the government of the UAE has abused people in custody, denied their citizens the right to a speedy trial and access to counsel during official investigations. The UAE's human rights record was widely criticised during the trials of Sarah Balabagan in 1995. In 2004 the Dubai police opened designated departments in all emirate police stations that are mandated to protect the human rights of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Dubai police also sponsored various human rights workshops and training seminars.

The government restricts freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the media avoids directly criticizing the government and censors its own news stories. Freedom of association, and freedom of religion are also curtailed. The trafficking of children for camel jockeys continues despite government pledges to end these practices.

The UAE has not signed most international human rights and labor rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the Convention against Torture.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html
Trafficking in Human Persons:
current situation: the United Arab Emirates is a destination country for men, women, and children trafficked from South and East Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East for involuntary servitude and for sexual exploitation; an estimated 10,000 women from sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, South and East Asia, Iraq, Iran, and Morocco may be victims of sex trafficking in the UAE; women also migrate from Africa, and South and Southeast Asia to work as domestic servants, but may have their passports confiscated, be denied permission to leave the place of employment in the home, or face sexual or physical abuse by their employers; men from South Asia come to the UAE to work in the construction industry, but may be subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude as they are coerced to pay off recruitment and travel costs, sometimes having their wages denied for months at a time; victims of child camel jockey trafficking may still remain in the UAE, despite a July 2005 law banning the practice; while all identified victims were repatriated at the government's expense to their home countries, questions persist as to the effectiveness of the ban and the true number of victims
tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - UAE is placed on the Tier 2 Watch List for its failure to show increased efforts to combat trafficking in 2005, particularly in its efforts to address the large-scale trafficking of foreign girls and women for commercial sexual exploitation.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061202180.html

The study documents efforts by foreign governments to prevent the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation and forced labor. It looks at whether the countries prosecute traffickers and try to protect the most vulnerable people, such as women and children.

It sets up a three-tier evaluation system, with the worst cases ranked in tier three and subject to immediate sanctions such as the prohibition of grants or sale of security items. A grace period of several months is granted to countries in the second tier watch list to give them time to introduce reforms. The president is allowed to waive sanctions.

<snip>

Human trafficking undermines any pretension that a country is democratic, Lagon said. "If people are treated as if they are subhuman and can be enslaved, the government is not fully living up to its democratic principles," he said.



I stand by my other posts on this topic. I also agree with the reasons to oppose the deal that was mentioned by the Wiki article that was linked in the OP. And I will also add that everyone (even govts.) should be free to consider reasonable issues before deciding to enter into a specific contract with someone.

Again, I think this was an excellent call by Congress.

[corplinx]

I stand by my other posts on this topic.

We would expect you to since every time we revealed why your pre-conceived notions were wrong, you went back to google to find more reasons to back the decision of the bigots and xenophobes.

[KoihimeNakamura]

A little touchy, arent' you, corplinx?

[Sefarst]

I think it’s undeniable that whoever is managing a company has a huge impact on the security aspects.

It's quite deniable, actually. Read up on how port security works and once again pay attention to the fact that the US Coast Guard and Border Patrol are in charge of security at the ports, not DPW. Tell me how, specifically, they impact security and why we can't trust them?

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the actual issue. If you want the US to cut off all business with companies from countries accused of human rights violations or that restricts freedoms, you're advocating isolationism.

[corplinx]

A little touchy, arent' you, corplinx?

Bored with the predictable goal shifting used to defend something that truly shamed us. Our government (both parties) made an associated between Dubai and terrorism. It was profiling. Even more disgusting were the people who weren't profiling but jumped on the bandwagon because it was a "win" issue.

Of course, who is going to admit to being in either of those camps? I suppose there might be a third camp of ignorance. I see members of this camp duly represented here of course.

[Kaylee]

It's quite deniable, actually. Read up on how port security works and once again pay attention to the fact that the US Coast Guard and Border Patrol are in charge of security at the ports, not DPW. Tell me how, specifically, they impact security and why we can't trust them?

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the actual issue. If you want the US to cut off all business with companies from countries accused of human rights violations or that restricts freedoms, you're advocating isolationism.

My posts are based upon my business experiences – people that control paychecks and other resources have more influence, period. Just based on common sense, I think this would be true even in this type of situation despite a couple of sentence in a NY Times article.

Also I think we have all known people who even though their core job responsibilities had nothing at all to do with security still have to go through a background check, drug testing, get finger-printed, bonded, etc., and even perhaps get a certain amount of security clearance. This is because although security was not among their responsibilities they were in a position, perhaps due to access or even just physical proximity, to have an impact on security.

Schumer is my senator and as a result I have been following his career off and on – I honestly don’t believe that he or a majority of Congress are racist.

Much of what I posted in post #30 had to do with providing background information about the UAE. I think it is more likely for terrorists to get funding and other forms of help from a country that does not have a tradition of democracy. Also it’s really not easy to be included in the US State Dept. tier 2 category for trafficking in persons.

I am not an isolationist. I understand and agree with the theory that one of the best ways to prevent war is to have active trade. However as I have already explained in earlier posts we don’t have to allow equal access to trade in all sectors of our economy.

Also, my understanding is that it is not the USA’s policy to treat all trading partners equally.

I think that is the main difference between the people posting is the thread. When I read your posts I see no room for shades of gray – its either all or nothing. Others seem to allow for different levels of trading access and to think its OK to limit to whom we allow access or influence in our ports.

[Sefarst]

Also I think we have all known people who even though their core job responsibilities had nothing at all to do with security still have to go through a background check, drug testing, get finger-printed, bonded, etc., and even perhaps get a certain amount of security clearance. This is because although security was not among their responsibilities they were in a position, perhaps due to access or even just physical proximity, to have an impact on security.

This goes back to my original point. In the sense you mean, ANYONE can have an impact on security. Therefore, we can't trust ANY foreigners to work in any industry that might somehow effect our national security, right? If we're going to base our security concerns on just phyical proximity or basic access, then no one is safe! Foreign airlines fly into our airports! We allow foreign nationals to work in our country with simple visas!

Schumer is my senator and as a result I have been following his career off and on – I honestly don’t believe that he or a majority of Congress are racist.

I'm not sure if the issue here is really racism, but more the willingness to play into the prejudice of the public in order to take the "easy" side of an issue.

I think it is more likely for terrorists to get funding and other forms of help from a country that does not have a tradition of democracy.
I don't see how that follows. What about a non-democratic country makes it easier for terrorists to infiltrate or operate under?

I am not an isolationist. I understand and agree with the theory that one of the best ways to prevent war is to have active trade. However as I have already explained in earlier posts we don’t have to allow equal access to trade in all sectors of our economy.

I think we do. Equal access to our markets is an important part of our stance in free trade (we sorta signed some treaties about this). We shouldn't disqualify a particular company from doing business with us unless we have a real and specific security threat. We didn't.

Also, my understanding is that it is not the USA’s policy to treat all trading partners equally.

In general, we're suppose to. We've agreed to during the various rounds in the World Trade Organization, though there are exceptions. There are loopholes and specificities, but the general idea is free trade.

I think that is the main difference between the people posting is the thread. When I read your posts I see no room for shades of gray – its either all or nothing. Others seem to allow for different levels of trading access and to think its OK to limit to whom we allow access or influence in our ports.
I look at every issue I post about first from the perspectice of principle. Then I filter that through the lens of the practical. Here's the way I see this argument:

The Other Side: "We can't have foreigners in charge of our port security!"
Me: "Foreigners were all ready in charge of our port management. The US government has always been in charge of its security."
The Other Side: "But these are muslim foreigners and any involvement COULD have an effect on security!"
Me: "Anyone anywhere can have an effect on the security of anything. The president and other members of government looked at the issue and decided the UAE is a close ally of ours and we have no reason to suspect them of dishonest motivations or of being a threat. And your obsession with the fact that they're muslims is prejudice."

If you think I'm wrong in my portrayal of your side, please correct me.

[Kaylee]

This goes back to my original point. In the sense you mean, ANYONE can have an impact on security. Therefore, we can't trust ANY foreigners to work in any industry that might somehow effect our national security, right? If we're going to base our security concerns on just phyical proximity or basic access, then no one is safe! Foreign airlines fly into our airports! We allow foreign nationals to work in our country with simple visas!
The foreign airlines don't manage our ports. And again I never said that this is something that we have to be concerned about in every sector of our economy....

It would probably be best to come up with a consistent set of rules and regulations for our ports that would satisfy everyones concerns. Perhaps this is an area that should be removed from the private sector entirely.



I'm not sure if the issue here is really racism, but more the willingness to play into the prejudice of the public in order to take the "easy" side of an issue. We will have to disagree on that one.


don't see how that follows. What about a non-democratic country makes it easier for terrorists to infiltrate or operate under? Non-democratic countries with a history of human trafficking have been documented as funding terrorism. Democratic countries have not with just one exception that I can think of -- some individuals in the USA have been reported as helping to fund the IRA. But note -- that they were individuals and not the USA govt.



I think we do. Equal access to our markets is an important part of our stance in free trade (we sorta signed some treaties about this). We shouldn't disqualify a particular company from doing business with us unless we have a real and specific security threat. We didn't.
I don't agree with you on this. My understanding is that in some countries the people who have the means to own a large corporation are either involved in govt or closely related to those who are. I read that this is true of Saudi Arabia and I think it may be true of the UAE as well. I think in this day and age not having a democracy, having a strong record of human trafficking and having many violations of human rights issues is a matter of major concern.




In general, we're suppose to. We've agreed to during the various rounds in the World Trade Organization, though there are exceptions. There are loopholes and specificities, but the general idea is free trade.
I tried googling some info in this area because I couldn't remember what was involved in giving a nation a more favorable trading status. I didn't have much luck. If you can recommend some search terms that would be great. In the meantime I have to think that there must be some reason why we signed NAFTA and why some people are in favor of CAFTA. Why bother if all nations get treated the same anyway?


I look at every issue I post about first from the perspectice of principle. Then I filter that through the lens of the practical. Here's the way I see this argument:

The Other Side: "We can't have foreigners in charge of our port security!"
Me: "Foreigners were all ready in charge of our port management. The US government has always been in charge of its security."
The Other Side: "But these are muslim foreigners and any involvement COULD have an effect on security!"
Me: "Anyone anywhere can have an effect on the security of anything. The president and other members of government looked at the issue and decided the UAE is a close ally of ours and we have no reason to suspect them of dishonest motivations or of being a threat. And your obsession with the fact that they're muslims is prejudice."

If you think I'm wrong in my portrayal of your side, please correct me.
Yes, I don't think you captured the portrayal of my side. I think my position is very clear in posts 4, 17 and 20.

[Corsair 115]

I think Lou Dobbs was the one that really played this up...Indeed he did.

Lou Dobbs lost whatever credibility he might have had a couple of years ago when he implied Canada was just another "cheap foreign labor market" like China or India.

When our congress sand-bagged the DPW deal, it sent out a message to foreign investors who skin might be the wrong shade that they may be made the whipping boy of the day if congress thinks it can make the chief executive look weak on national security by portraying all of your ilk as terrorists.It's not just the "wrong" shade. Look at the uproar surrounding the Air Force tanker deal. Look at what the Democratic candidates for the presidency have said about pulling out of NAFTA.

There is a rising sentiment of protectionism in the U.S. This does not bode well for other countries interested in doing business with the United States.