As I've said before, why hold any Middle Eastern country to a different standard than the British? Take Iran, for example. We're dead seat against Iran having nukes. Why then are we not threatening to attack England unless they disarm? Could it be that there is a different standard? Could it be that the differences are obvious?
"As I've said before, why hold any Middle Eastern country to a different standard than the British? Take Iran, for example. We're dead seat against Iran having nukes. Why then are we not threatening to attack England unless they disarm? Could it be that there is a different standard? Could it be that the differences are obvious?"
EXCELLENT post. Next time President Bush warns Iran about no nukes, hopefully someone will ask him "Why the different standard for Iran? Why can't they have nukes like Israel? This is bigoted!!"
When he gives the predictable answer, someone can hopefully remind him that this "different standard" should also apply to homeland security.
Has Britain threatened us or any of our Allies with their nukes? Has Israel, or France?
The government of the UAE has not threatened us, and the company that will take over the running of the ports has been doing this same thing all over the world. They have a track record that is available for anyone to see.
The SECURITY at the ports will not change. Homeland Security is in charge, the workers will remain in their jobs. Only the names at the top of the ownership roster will change. DPW is in this to make money. If they screw up and allow something bad to happen, they will lose contracts all over the world. This is BUSINESS, and they won't mess around. I think they'll be even MORE conscious of the possibility that terrorists might try to send weapons through the ports, and work to stop that.
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?