Reuters: "McClellan said to not go forward with the deal would send a "terrible message" because it would hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company and because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong partner in the war on terrorism."
And yet, you will support legislation that OPENLY discriminates against all arab muslims??? Though they are AMERICAN CITIZENS??? I'm, sorry, but supporting a trade off of this country's security is beyond ridiculous. It's dangerous. I'm no racist, but giving the security of our ports over to the United Arab Emirates would be no more helping our security than a Kwikset key to a masterlock to Houdini. It's just plain stupid, and dangerous. THe UAE supports the very terrorists, and even aided in funding on some levels, whom attacked the United States. Bush, the so-called Crusade fighter, is going to stop and say "hmmmmm, we can't stop this trade from happening. the UAE would never DREAM of attacking us, though they are proving UNCOOPERATIVE in the war on terror. Let's LET them get our ports, where a ridiculously high percentage number of crates go unchecked even with the current company that oversees the safety of our supplies" this is stupid logic. It's stupid, because we can find better. If there's one way you want to prevent terrorism from accessing this country, it's first of all NOT giving them our keys.
the UAE is not just some Arab country; it is one that has in the past supported terrorism. And handing them our ports would be a VERY-BAD-IDEA. It's one thing to be for open free-trade. It's quite another to set the gate keys in the hand of a killer and name them as your butler. Nope, nope, nope. Bad idea. The government needs to keep its keys, raise taxes, and protect our OWN damned ports.
If not... then hey, another raised glass to the hastening of the fall of the Empire.
I just had to get that out, as it came up in our humanities discussion on Economics.