I can just see this one coming....

[reDEMption]

"If there's NOT a war on terror, and if 98% of muslims are 'moderates'--which poses scant threat to us, or anyone else--then why would there be an objection to a muslim firm guarding our ports?" :shrug:

[BR_Parkway]

1. I have an objection to any outside firm managing our ports. It's a gov't

job.

[Warpy]

3. That is certainly MY objection, too!

The corporation in question has a lot of ties to administration insiders, especially Snow, but they also have a good reputation as a port management company, running ports throughout the mideast and Asia.

However, it's not their job!!! It's the government's job, one that should never be privatized, especially now when government bungling has made us a world pariah.

[reDEMption]

5. Do we have a governmental agency that can do it?

If not, do we have ANY company in America who COULD do it? (And who's been doing it up to now? Who did it in the 90's? And what's wrong with them doing it NOW?)

I WANNA KNOW WHY WE CAN'T DO IT OURSELVES!

O8) :patriot:

[Jacobin]

2. Uhm

Polls in IraqNam show that FORTY EIGHT percent SUPPORT attacks on U.S. troops.

Perhaps 2% of 1.3 billion muslim people world wide is enough to be worried about? that would be about 26 million people

[slor]

4. I do not even want a UK company guarding our ports...

That is a job for Americans.

[sandnsea]

6. Because Bush says there is

That's the obvious point. The absolute psychosis of spending billions upon billions in their war on terror, to just turn around and open the door to the terrorists THEY say we have to fight.

If you're wondering about DU, many of us have always believed there is a genuine terrorist threat, just that it wasn't in Iraq and that a global military assault wasn't the way to go about fighting it.

Finally, this is just another in a long line of Bush-Arab power grabs and has much more to do with their global domination schemes and that's what I personally object to most.