Oppose. And if Bush were a Democrat, so would nearly everyone here.
-Dan
Posted on 02/24/2006 12:20:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Oppose.
Even if it WAS a good idea, the need for advance damage control should have been anticipated and ready to roll, or even better, pre-empt any criticisms.
Agree.
Support
Support. Anything that the Teamsters are mad at has to have something going for it.
Thank you for posting the new poll Mr. Robinson.
I agree, were there an American company that were in the bidding process, I'd prefer they have the contract. I'd prefer the current company continue. But we don't live in a perfect world and I don't see that the strength of the arguments against this deal measure up to the reasons to support this deal. From what I've seen most of the opposition centers around conjecture of what CAN happen.
Theories. Suspicions. Distrust.
The reasons to support center around more concrete findings such as they have a good record with other nations and our own military in this field. As well, stategically we need to develop friendly alliances with Muslims to counter those that seek to kill us. I have no reason to believe this group seeks to ensure our ports are blown up. Neither from a business standpoint nor a more personally driven agenda.
Terrorists specifically operate in nationless status to make it difficult to track them or retaliate. What folks are essentially suggesting is that the UAE is presenting itself as a fat target should anything happen. No, I give them credit for having more sense to make themselves an inviting bullseye in event of an attack.
I come from leaning against but uncommittal because I knew nothing about the issue, to supporting it. The case for is simply stronger than the case against.
Both of your posts prove the whole argument that "nothing will change because P&O already controls the ports"...Blah Blah...Are nothing but misleading and inacurate information. So those who are supposably giving us the facts are in fact decieving us. I also gathered from FOX that not all the ports in question here can be treated the same as to who is there and how they are run.
Of course not. I believe he had a knee jerk reaction like most did. Probably his ego was somewhat hurt also as he wasn't consulted (which he wasn't allowed by law to be btw). I know he has had Bush to the port several times.
Good points.
I'd agree with you here. Oh, I think there are the usual minority that actually are affected by prejudice involved to an extent. Then there are the biased Libs that will always say the opposite without thought. But the rest that were/are in opposition, the majority of that opposition, I do believe did so for the reason you state. The borders. The perception Washington is not taking domestic securities seriously enough, and this was a reaction to it in an indirect way. And, yeah, I don't believe Americans feel it's a religion of peace. I don't, though I do support "liberalizing" their doctrine so they'll buy into the idea it is a religion of peace. Sort of the way Liberals try to liberalize Christianity, only in the case of Islam, it would be to its benefit.
But D.C. will not read it that way because they need to be smacked in the face with reality. Taking up the issue indirectly is too subtle for them to grasp.
-Dan
Oppose. Too much of a 9/11 connection to the UAE with the funds routed through their banks and two of the hijackers being UAE citizens.
Support.
Oppose.
Of course.
Oppose.
Oppose.
Support
Oppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.