[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Republicans are against this deal, however I am not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you approve of the UAE supporting the Taliban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello non sequitir. But Ill humor you. First off, define support? Recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (regardless of what you or I think of the Taliban), is much less egregious then outright support of terrorism. Which one was it? Cite your sources please and then tell me what this has to do with this port deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


By the way, UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.

And what was that figure someone cited? ~40% of the citizens in the UAE support OSAMA BIN LADEN?

I recently read that the Treasury Dept. part of that committee has virtually never met a foreign investment deal (outside--->U.S.) that they didn't like and approve. But does it really even matter how many committees "investigate" this deal? Isn't it still obvious that the chances of terrorist penetration or compromise of this privately held company from UAE, are far greater than the chances of the same with a British or US company? Why have so much trust in officialdom--why not just think for ourselves for a moment?

There is NO WAY a privately held company from the UAE...or from Pakistan...or from Saudi Arabia (all of which happen to be good U.S. "allies" in the war on terror, by the way...can possibly be considered as unlikely to be compromised or penetrated by terrorists as British or our own. No way in hell, in fact. A company from a country that has what, 40% popular support for bin Laden? Isn't that company more likely to be penetrated or compromised by terrorists? I mean really...this whole thing just seems surreal to me, and even beyond surreal. I don't care if Bush and Rummy and even Ronald Reagan's ghost were all to rubber-stamp the deal and say it's swell..it just isn't. Why this isn't more obvious to everyone is just beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had your way, would any company from the UAE be allowed to operate in any way in the United States? Say, a clothing line or a car company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course; why not? But not outsourcing military, security, or anything that might be a critical weak point we may have. The ports are a weak point already as has long been noted.

I also don't see why anyone thinks this has anything to do with xenophobia, Islamophobia, or anti-Arab bigotry. The UAE has widespread popular support for Osama bin-Laden, for crying out loud; the Pakistani/Khan smuggled nukes went through there; it's something of a terrorist hub. If the Swedish citizenry had widespread popular support for OBL the same would apply to them too. Why the heck isn't this obvious?

We shouldn't be taking chances with our potential achilles heel (ports) to save a few bucks. And Bush saying that stuff about "sending a message" is just amazing--as if THAT weighs even a millionth of what preventing nukes going off in 6 major seaboard cities weighs.

We just don't need to take chances like this. My God this whole thing is just like watching the Twilight Zone.