Agreed. And even the reasons why we shouldn't be against it are weak IMO. B/c "our ally would be angry with us and not cooperate in the WOT." What a crock of itsh that is! If they're such a marvelous ally, then they'd understand the obvious.
My beef is that let's face it here, the UAE is just about all muslim for all intents and purposes. At last check, it has been muslims that we've been having problems with. We don't know who the "good" ones or "bad" ones are. I can't tell by looking and I've heard many say that the goal is to smile at us and then slit our throats.
My question is simple: Suppose we knew that a "bad" muslim, more specifically one that is bent on seeing to it that terror against American people and targets is realized, were in charge in some capacity in one of the DPW US Port positions. Would there be cause for concern? Would that person be able to assist in the matter in his position?
Thus far we can't even get an answer as to exactly what they do. But getting back on point, if we can't tell which muslims are good or bad as it were, then HTH can we trust any of them guarding our ports?
I'm still waiting for the Whitehouse to step out on this too! Apparently I'd be dead if I ever held my breath on the issue.
Also, they use the excuse that "foreign companies already run all of our ports." First of all, none are muslim. Second of all, haven't we been hearing since 9/11 how the ports are the weak link in the chain of WMD entry?
We have! Ergo, shouldn't we be "connecting the dots" between "foreign operated ports" and "the weak link in US security" then! Duh! But no, instead just b/c our ports are foreign operated, it's now apparently OK to have some muslim company operate the others.
And if all they are is glorified bookkeepers, then the notion that no other companies want the work is absurd.
I hope that helps somewhat.