Anti-Arab Hysteria

7 Responses to “Anti-Arab Hysteria”

1. clark smith Says:
   February 24th, 2006 at 2:07 am

   To label opposition to the port deal as “Anti-Arab Hysteria” is very wrong.

2. Xrlq Says:
   February 24th, 2006 at 6:18 am

   Care to explain why?

3. Cinomed Says:
   February 24th, 2006 at 12:44 pm

   I would say it is wrong because throwing down the race card is generally wrong.
   This is not really about them being Arab, it has more to do with the possibility of islamofacists having greater access to the data that is used to manage and oversee our ports.

   If you want to label it anything I would be more apt to call it anti-islamic, because that is the thing here, do we want a mainly islamic nation to oversee some of our ports?

   I am firmly in the “No-ish” side right now, there are valid arguments to both sides.

4. jjv Says:
   February 24th, 2006 at 4:34 pm

   Pakistan is a big ally of ours in the war on terror and I wouldn’t want them near our ports either. I also think its a joke to compare a private British company, a country with which we have ties of language, history, common interest, institutions and point of view to an Arab country that does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, is run by emirs, was friends with the Taliban and which bred two of the World Trade Center bombers. That said the leadership of the country does seem forward looking and resonable in many respects, this may be an ok deal. Nonetheless, the cries of racism from noting that we are putting American ports and all the information about them we have in the hands of folks with close kinship ties to suicide bombers, fanatical anti-semites and wahhabis are insupportable. The people we are fighting are anti-Democratic moslems who hate Israel, deny women rights, but have no animus towards business (look at Osama. That seems to describe the leadership of the UA as well. Pardon me for looking at it twice.

5. steve sturm Says:
   February 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pm

   While I don’t have a dog in this fight, thinking as I do that the opposition is much ado about nothing, I’ll kick in a couple of comments anyway:

   Me thinks it wrong, as Dean does, to suggest that Dubai/UAE (however you want to reference the place) should be on an equal footing with Great Britain (”both of them great friends to the United States”). The UAE may indeed be a friend in the war on terror but that alone doesn’t qualify them for most favored nation treatment. We have a comfort and a history with England that we don’t have with a whole lot of countries, the UAE being among them. We go to England on vacation, we steal their TV shows, we swoon at their accents, we got up early in the morning to watch their Prince get married and their Princess get buried, we can (mostly) find the place on a map. And while, as it has been pointed out, Great Britain sent Richard Reid our way, given the long relationship we have had with them, they’re entitled to a f***up every now and then.

   And Clark Smith is right that opposition to the deal isn’t (necessarily) anti-Arab hysteria. Just as Ann Coulter doesn’t (I believe) hate ALL arabs, just those who want to destroy us and our way of life, it’s possible to view opposition to this deal as being anti-Arabs-who-have-not-totally-proven-themselves hysteria… with the ‘not-proven’ element being the critical element. And, for me, any country that is, at a minimum, sympathetic to the terrorists trying to destroy Israel is a country that has much left to prove that we can rely on them.

6. Tom Trigger Says:
   February 25th, 2006 at 6:34 pm

   The UAE is hardly a friend of the U.S. — regardless of what W may say.

7. Dave Munger Says:
   February 25th, 2006 at 8:43 pm

   You can’t go wrong opposing the State Department.

Leave a Reply