Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: antaresequity

If you caught Bill O'Reilly tonight, he dotted the i's and crossed the t's about Bush's motives. It makes sense to reward a country that's been extremely helpful to us in the war on terror regardless of the fact that two of the 9/11 murderers were from the Emirates. And in the Middle East as well as Asia, loss of face is a factor to be considered. However, we've already lost more than 3000 innocents. And if they were allowed to take control of these ports, our sensitive security measures/methods would certainly have to be shared. And who's to say that someone's lowlife/terrorist brother-in-law might not finagle a job at the Port of New York with the aim of blowing up something large? Weighing pros and cons, I fear the Arab Emirates have to understand that the world has changed, the US has to take the matter of border/port security more seriously than we did five years ago.


2,232 posted on 02/21/2006 9:15:53 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: hershey
And if they were allowed to take control of these ports, our sensitive security measures/methods would certainly have to be shared.

Who says??????

2,235 posted on 02/21/2006 9:17:13 PM PST by RushCrush (God. Guns. Texas. Hunting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

To: hershey
If you caught Bill O'Reilly tonight, he dotted the i's and crossed the t's about Bush's motives. It makes sense to reward a country that's been extremely helpful to us in the war on terror

There are other ways to reward a county - maybe he could appoint one their citizens to the supreme court.

O'Reilly was, as usual, a walking logical fallacy.

2,240 posted on 02/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

To: hershey
And if they were allowed to take control of these ports, our sensitive security measures/methods would certainly have to be shared.

Not true. Not true at all. DPW will have nothing to do with security.

2,245 posted on 02/21/2006 9:19:12 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

To: hershey
And who's to say that someone's lowlife/terrorist brother-in-law might not finagle a job at the Port of New York with the aim of blowing up something large?

And you win the prize for pointing out what should be so painfully obvious...why in the world would we make it any easier to be attacked?

All it takes is some disgruntled schlep to flip a switch, pass a document, turn off a video camera...just because the last pizza he ate gave him heartburn or his old lady didn't put out...OR...the last sermon he got from the Imahn at the converted wherehouse mosque lit a fire under his a$$

This is like letting the Fox's brother or second cousin guard the hen house...

Its not worth the aggravation or uncertainty..

2,247 posted on 02/21/2006 9:21:18 PM PST by antaresequity (PUSH 1 FOR ENGLISH, PUSH 2 TO BE DEPORTED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

To: hershey

The day I let O'Reilly do my thinking for me...

Well, I don't want to think about it! LOL.


2,369 posted on 02/21/2006 10:03:16 PM PST by La Enchiladita (God bless our troops and their families.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

To: hershey
And if they were allowed to take control of these ports, our sensitive security measures/methods would certainly have to be shared.

Which proves you have no clue.

2,473 posted on 02/21/2006 10:31:08 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2232 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson