Posted on 02/21/2006 6:35:23 PM PST by jdm
If only the terrorists had a big "T" branded on their forehead we could easily tell which ones were which. But lacking that, it is difficult to distinguish the good from the bad. I personally don't have much fear that anybody in the UAE Royal family is going to be involved in terrorism but I think it is likely that they have plenty of America hating Islamofacists in their employee.
No, but a good portion of the rest of them dance around in the street and celebrate while burning U.S. flags.
Gee, I don't remember when we had our last "Burn the Saudi Arabian flag and ululate" block party.
Oh? Perhaps you need to do a little research about our military relationship with the UAE.....
He may not see it as political... but it doesn't get any more political than this.. if Bush's first veto after 5+ years in office is a bill to stop a middle eastern company from controlling our ports then Mr. Bush and his supporters will be toast politically.
UAE is one of the more stable and westernized countries in the M.E. however if it controls the ports, it will be a MAGNET to little jihadists everywhere to infiltrate and attack us. This is reality.
Russians were our Allies in WWII.. but I wouldn't have turned the ports over to them either.
Has Britain ever threatened to use its nuclear capability in an agressive manner against another nation? Have they swore to whipe another nation off the map? Is their government a modified theocracy?
Whose side does CAIR come down on in this dustup? When we find that out, we will know which side to come down on in America's best interests! (hint: it will be the other side)
See post #88
If Iraq, a country that many of our young people gave their lives & time to free, wanted to take over the management of some of our major ports once they were totally independent, what would your answer be?
Why, why not?
Pretty easy answer.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. interests involving middle eastern/Islamic countries?
Almost all of them.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. interests involving Nordic/European/Asian/all other non-Islamic countries?
Almost none of them.
There, that's why.
Freeing it is one thing--trusting it is another. There are too many Jihadists floating around in the Middle East--even in countries that are (supposedly) our friends. I'm sure we can find any number of American/European companies willing to run these ports that we can trust.
"Jihadists" bombed England's transit system. (Obviously) What makes you think "Jihadists" aren't currently employed by British, Australian, Polish or any other so-called trustworthy company? Afterall three Muslim-terrorist types were employed in/and attending the University in Toledo.
No, no, and no. My point exactly. There is a different standard.
THAT I can agree with. NO foreign country, not even our allies, running ANY of our points of entry. One never knows when the "tide will turn" so to speak. This is where we should have been all along as far as our national interests.
Why? one word...islamanzis
I guess he has forgotten that he works for US.
Pathetic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.