After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

FR Poll ^

[Search4Truth]

I intially opposed it. But now I support it. Mainly because many who I trust are supporting it. One of which is General Tommy Franks (retired). Sometimes one just has to trust their leaders.

[TigersEye]

I get the feeling you're not sure of a lot of things.

[Irish Eyes]

Support, always did.

[Search4Truth]

Thanks for the imagery. I'm gonna hurl now.

[BunnySlippers]

Support .... based on learning a little more about it.

[Flux Capacitor]

----I, like you, was initially opposed.----

No you weren't, ma'am. You hemmed and hawed and wrung your hands and tried desperately to find some way for Bush to come out smelling like a rose no matter what the hell was going on with this. Then you took your nightly dip in the GroupThinkTank with the rest of the FR Sewing Circle and all was well.

As always. :)

-Dan

[Flux Capacitor]

----I get the feeling you're not sure of a lot of things.----

I'm sure this deal stinks.

-Dan

[EverOnward]

Opposed. Hope I won't be banned for that....

[sinkspur]

I'm sure this deal stinks.

Your version of an argument?

[Wolfstar]

There's a lot of good information out there to help you make your decision, Wolfstar.

Hi, OWF. Yes, there's a lot of info out there now. I need to spend some time this weekend reading up on the pros and cons.

[Flux Capacitor]

You silly thing, I summed up my argument further up the thread. I directed it at people who actually want to HAVE an argument, but you're welcome to take a look at it all the same. :)

-Dan

[Wiseghy]

Michelle Malkin is usually an engaging, insightful writer. But on this one, she was clearly playing to what she thought was her "audience" and went off the deep end into ignorant, embarrassingly ill-informed ranting.

Commentators like her and Coulter both pander to us, and sometimes make embarrassing mistakes in an effort to get their rage on to paper and the blogsphere where we can "react" to it. In this case, they only showed a shockingly MSM like behavior, with agenda dictating over fact.

[ohioWfan]

And you, as always, just make things up.

Please stop it, before you go off the deep end of abuse the way you did a few weeks ago.

I didn't report you then, but I will now. No more lying.

[Swordfished]

55%/34%....FREEPED!

hehe, just kidding. i'm glad reason and rational arguments had the opportunity to inform peoples' opinions - whether they oppose or support the deal - instead of emotion.

[ohioWfan]

A lot of good info, and a lot of good, thoughtful articles, pro and con.

Plenty to make you more confident of the decision. (Read what Tommy Franks said........it helped me a lot).

[Willie Green]

Although there are legitimate concerns with the UAE, I am opposed to the ports deal largely because the Bush Administration has failed to provide adequate border security in general.
Furthermore, CFIUS has rubberstamped technology transfers that pose a much greater security risk than what's at stake in leasing these ports.

Reform CFIUS to Stop Foreign Raiders from Dismantling the Defense Industrial Base

[decal]

"Michelle Malkin is usually an engaging, insightful writer..."

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to see MM spout off like that - I expect it from Miss Coulter.

[Sam Cree]

I'd probably be happier if an Arab nation did not hold this contract, but my opinion is that blowing them off now will hurt the WOT, as conceived by Bush, more than allowing them to go through with the purchase will be a danger. So we ought to let it stand, or rethink our entire strategy.

[k omalley]

Undecided, but leaning toward support. If the UAE has truly been loyal to the USA then we should stand by them.

[TSchmereL]

The reason Bush supports Dubai Ports is simple.

We have to keep selling something if we are going to keep buying cheap foreign made goods. If it is no longer profitable to make the goods here because it is cheaper to make them overseas, then all we have to trade is the raw materials used to make the goods.

It should be easy for us to see how the sale of contracts for the control of our ports fits into this analysis.

CSX World Terminals and other related interests are going to get about $1.15 billion if this deal goes through.

That is the crux of this issue.

It would be a good step towards balancing the trade deficit and that is what is motivating the President.

The theory is that we can sell plots of land here and there, or bundles of rights here and there, but you can't sell sovereignty. Bringing more of the world into a diversified economic working relationship that is under our rules is not a bad thing; and we can use the $1.15 billion a company is willing to pay for a contract to operate under our rules.

On the other hand, the UAE is a despicable scum-ball of terrorist supporting monarchical theocratic dictatorships.

That is the issue in a nutshell. It is as if the lowest outlaw in the west has stepped into the saloon. He wants to play poker and he has two saddlebags packed so full of money he can't close them. Do you play cards with him, or tell him that we don't allow his kind in here?