Many disagree.
I, and many others, understand the deal quite well, and yet still oppose it.
Just because you claim we're ignorant don't make it so.
After regurgitating all the paleo-con talking points, he was asked by Rush "So you're saying that no port facilities should be sold to Arabs, but not because they're Arabs, is that it?"
"Yes" agreed the caller, "that's exactly it!"
"The 80% who were against the Dubai ports deal were uninformed..."
"Many disagree. "
Obviously, or they wouldnt be 80%!
"Just because you claim we're ignorant don't make it so."
True, but to show that this is not just knee-jerk, give us the specific actual evidence, not speculation/fearmongering/'we-cant-trust-Arabs', that a few terminals run by DP World as opposed to P&O would be a risk to national security. eg, examples where DP World management had more lax security than P&O of London. I asked this question repeatedly on the threads discussing it and got no answers ... it's how I concluded the anti-ports sentiment was not based on serious evaluation of reality.
IMHO, the ports deal opposition was riled up by the cartoon controversy. It showed the muslims as ignorant bigots. I thought it was crazy that muslims would cast aspersions on a whole country (Denmark) over something a few individuals did. At least we in the West are far more civilized than that, right?