Why are you being so ugly? Nice cherry picking on your part. Charles admits readily that there could be problems:
On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terrorism, has any such record. (That paragraph is considered showing the good AND the dangerous aspects of the deal).
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types. (That paragraph shows the danger of the deal)
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
There's more, but you get the point. Now I suggest you stop making yourself seem silly. My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that Saudi Arabia already manages some of our terminals.
I'll wait while you tell how it is you have come to the 100% wrong conclusion that I'm in the grip of some intellectual hysteria. Read my posts in the forum. I'll wait. And then expect an apology.
No, muffin: "ugly" would be to accuse you either of intellectual inadequacy (in not being swift enough to grasp what is plainly written), or else lying outright (in intentionally misrepresenting same).
Granting the possibility that you may simply be in hysterics, on the other hand, spares you from being tarred as either a mope or a fraud. You're entirely welcome, of course.
Charles admits readily that there could be problems
As there very well might be, obviously. Obviously didn't change one jot or tittle of his final analysis, however, did it? Hmmmmmmmmm...?
My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that
Your original "point," such as it is, is bucktoothed. He already does know, as the article has long since rendered concrete.
Read my posts in the forum.
You'll be waiting a good, long-ish while before stumbling across anyone caring less about your other postings hereabout than I, kiddo... and: they're wildly irrelevant, in any case. It's within this thread that you've plainly decided to have your little tantrum, after all.
I'll wait. And then expect an apology.
Make certain to move your legs, every few hours. It'll help prevent cobwebs.