Well I am at this point for the port deal for a variety of reasons. The immigration issue I know is a tough one. I avoid alot of those threads because unfort they become a little extreme. Its a shame because I share the concerns esp about security. There has got to be a solution to it. A solution that makes us secure, allows foreign workers to come in, doesnt inflame the Hispanic community and make us a minority party forever, etc. Former Sen Simpson would say to the effect that something needs to be done on the topic but both the left and right go off the deep end thats its impossible. I guess thats why no President could get it under control. We need to do something thats for sure that recognizes all the interest involved. One reason I hate to touch the issue is that it always seems like a "white Repub thing". Why we cant get some Republican Hispanics on the front lines of this I dont know.
In the past the issue has been handled badly without the required empathy. Now if a Dem like Richardson and other Dems on the Border could give Bush some cover we could prob talk about it and come to a solution.
Solutions are easy. First you have to identify/recognize a problem and Bush has indicated the opposite, which is why I don't trust him entirely on the port stuff.
Economically and superficially I have no problem with the DPW port deal. But, and call me skeptical, I just don't trust muslim nations. They call it an "Arab" country. But allow me to ask, if port operations in this country had been bought by a German firm in the late '30s or early '40s that had as it's employees/owners/etc. Nazis, would we have supported it?
Some will argue that there's a big difference. I just don't see it. The UAW is muslim and that's a fact. I'm sure that most of not all of DPW's employees are muslim too. How many times do we have to be bitten in the ass by muslims acting independently or as nations, often after getting fooled for a decade or more, before we figure things out?
We just don't know what these people are up to in their backroom discussions. But all of a sudden, on this issue, they're all 100% sincere and 100% trustworthy. Well, OK. I'll stand in the minority there.
The other side of it is that we need them in the WOT. Well, perhaps so. But as I see it, it's quite a bit of "dancing with the devil" as it were. I'm sure there are things that can be gained by an alliance of sorts with the UAE, and no doubt their assistance and land/port use is valuable.
But they have interests in that too. They know all too well how volatile their region is and we are security for them through that. So for anyone to think that "they'd kick us out," that's a joke. Any rumors of stuff like that occurring is just them playing us for fools.
But you know what, at some point, just as WWII began, the sides in this WOT are gonna clear up substantially, likely after we could have done some things to mitigate it.
I think that then entire ports strategy needs to be reevaluated.
BTW, what was the formal "state sponsored" reaction to the "muslim cartoon" issue?
I think that would speak volumes as to their true motives.