"Then why isn't your post about the UAE?"
I am arguing by analogy because thus far you and I are merely speculating about what UAE MAY do in response to our pulling out of the port deal. I can't answer what did NOT yet happen. I do speculate the reverse to your position. I don't believe the UAE will do anything to our military interests on the basis of the port deal. That is not to say that should they decide for other reasons at some point to curtail their US connection, say pressure from Islamists, they won't bang the port drum for all they can.
My answer was by analogy to what the Saudis did to us despite our unremitting suck up.
"That is a factually incorrect statement. Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies. That is not why they asked us to stop military operations from their country."
Right. You don't want to look at the obvious.
Many elements in their governments, not to mention the populace, of SA, and ALL Gulf States including UAE support Al Qaeda and terrorism.
They play both sides. That's the objection.
OK. Then I meet your Saudi Arabian analogy with my French analogy. Do you think we should stop trade agreements with the British?
"Right. You don't want to look at the obvious."
What could be more obvious than outright fact? The Royal family that runs Saudi Arabia is at war with Al Qaeda. That is a matter of fact. Bin Laden hates them.
"ALL Gulf States including UAE support Al Qaeda and terrorism."
Now you are just flat out making things up. If your arguments were strong, you could support them with facts. Not fantasy. Al Qaeda has specifically threatened the UAE for its support of the US war on terror. That is a fact. The UAE has ignored their threats. That is a fact. Their support of our war on terror has grown continuously since 9/11. That is a fact. We could not have accomplished what we have accomplished against Al Qaeda without the use of their ports and airfields. That is a fact. Now it's your turn. I want some facts detailing how the UAE supports Al Qaeda and terrorism.