UAE & Ports, Bush & Iraq

I've been on a political streak recently, don't worry I have a neato one on partitioning coming down the tube. The whole UAE port scandal incensed me. Why does it matter if they own equipment at ports??!? They've never been connected to terrorism, they are very modern, western and pro captitalism, they have a per capita GDP comparable to the United States. If we would allow a free trade agreement with them, why wouldn't we let them own stuff here?

The way I see it, the more interconnectivity we have the better. Would Osama Bin Laden gotten attackers to hit the World Trade Towers if he had friends/family there? How about if he owned stock in United Airlines? Yeah, probably not. FDR and his advisors had a great idea after WWII. Nations that trade don't fight. Since then, AFAIK no nation that trades freely with another has gone to war with it.

It just seems racist to object to the UAE whereas the port equipment used to be owned by the Brits. If it was Iran, fine we should be worried, but the UAE is not like Iran in any way other than race and religion. It reminds me of people who think we should penalize sucessful countries/companies with trade barriers. It sounds just like racism to care about one group of people you've never met more than another (like Detroit auto workers vs. Japanese ones). I'm not saying it is racist, it just sounds like it.

As long as I am on a rant, why the heck are we still in Iraq? I've asked myself and others a number of times. I get different answers but none of them seem to hold water.

Is it for democracy's sake? It seems very imperialistic to force an unwanted form of government on a country. If the Iraqis do want democracy, shouldn't enough of them support the fledgling government for us to leave? If leaving would allow the terrorists to win because they have more resources, we can give the Iraqis the money and weapons they need. If the terrorists would win because not enough people care to fight them, it seems they have the mandate of the people.

Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda and he had no WMD. We didn't know that before, so it was fine that we invaded. But now we know. So it isn't about protecting ourselves anymore. Many people claim we should stay because we've invested so much money and lives already it'd all be for naught if we left. This is the exact definition of a sunk cost, one that should be ignored in future analysis.

Why are the terrorists blowing up our soldiers in Iraq? We like to say it is the bland hatred of freedom, but could it be our long standing anti-muslim policy in Israel? Or how about our occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq? Maybe it is our undue influence we use to selectively pressure and protect third world nations? It seems simplistic that they hate us for our way of life. If it is simply that, why didn't Muslim attacks come sooner than the mid 90s.

The only honest reason I can figure, is that President Bush wants or needs wartime powers for whatever reason. He can only get them by keeping us perpetually in war (kind of reminds me of Orwell's masterpiece 1984). The wartime powers would be cover his wiretapping (and other semi-legal) decisions. Wartime power may be a good enough reason to many, I'm not so sure. But at least let's call this what it is.