O'Dannyboy

I have noticed lately that every piece on the Dubai deal accuses the U.S. of racial profiling and even racial descrimination. I think they are turning our well placed caution into something derogatory. I for one have no problem with Arabs. As far as I can tell 90% of Arabs are Muslim and 90% of known terrorist organisations are Muslim so you do the math. I think racial profiling is prudent under these circumstances. I am not saying they should nix the deal because its with an Arab nation, but I am saying that such a deal should be given a great deal of scrutiny. Much more scrutiny than rushing it through a 12 man secret panel headed up by commercialy biased politicians. All I am hearing from the media is that even though "operations" will be run from Dubai, the operators and even security will remain the same. Somehow that is just not as comforting as some would think. I want to know that they are taking extra measures, adopting new policies and so on. I do not wan't to hear nor apreciate being told there is nothing to worry about. As one of the 6 Governors said " trust us just isn't going to cut it".

Incredible.

Restore? Someone is deluded. We are supposed to believe that the hollocost never happened and that at one point Islam was in control of the entire world? Paleeaase!

Blah blah blah. Iran still insists it has a right to and will continue enrichment on it own soil. Iran buying fuel from Russia will only shorten the time it takes for them to construct a weapon. Russia has already said the the agreement would be conditional upon Iran suspending all enrichment activities, which makes complete sense.

It never should have made it to the theaters to begin with especially if it was sponsored by the turkish government. Isn't Turkey supposedly a valuable ally in the war against terror? Doesn't the U.S. Government consider themselves on good terms with them? Why then would they be supporting production of such films?

If it was only a business transaction then why all the secrecy? If they were unaware of the security risk then why the secrecy? Someone is not telling the truth.

I'm still curious what the four conditions are. It apears as though they are still trying to negotiate being allowed to enrich uranium on their own soil, which would negate any benefit of moving enrichment to Russia. Under these circumstances they are simply welcoming the opportunity to cut their enrichment time, at least, in half.

If he wasn't aware of the deal until it made the news, then why, pray tell, did he threaten to veto any attempts to stop it before congress was given the chance to review the sale from a security standpoint? I mean, why was he so adamant about pushing through a deal that he only just found out about? Both Congress and the public wanted clarification of the terms of the deal and the whole time he's telling us not to worry about it like its not our place to worry about security. If it was only a "business transaction" then why are the documents classified? I for one am thankful that this deal will receive the scrutiny it deserves.

I don't suspect that Pres Bush see this as a time for further investigation but a required period for his "government" to assure congress and the public that the deal is not a risk. I for one want Bush and his "govenment" to PROVE that its safe before I will feel good about it. I personally wan't to know what the deal is with bush and this sale. Initially he comes out threatening to veto any bills designed to stop this deal, but strangely enough he, supposedly, only just heard about the deal himself? Finally, is appears, there are those who are looking into his families financial ties to this sale. National media correspondents have already spoken of it though it nothing more than conjecture. I guess like many republicans I wan't to know what he was thinking when he came our with the veto delcaration, because that attitude shows complete disregard for everyone elses opinion, except the 12 people appointed to the panel that is said to have investigated this deal. A panel that leans strongly towards commercial/financial interests instead of security. The whole thing is fishy and I hope our govenment, and perhaps Bushes' government too, can make some sense of this to the rest of us. Notice how Bush has been refering to his administration as HIS government and at one point spoke as if congress was not even part of the government at all? His attitude and speach is begining to show signs of a severe power trip.

Main Entry: Mus

I never said they didn't have the right. Israel has the right to cut off their own funds to the Palestinians. I , for one, am not in a possition to judge whether or not they have a right to deny the pelestinians funds from other sources. I d , however, have to question whether or not they will be capable of keeping Iranian funds from reaching the Palestinians. We arleady know that it's highly unlikely that these funds will go to feeding those who need it, but rather it would go to pay the so called government, such as it is and to provide the militants with the "necessities".

I don't think Israel is in a position to deny the Palestinians money from other sources. Understanding that this money is not likely to go to feed the people but rather to pay the wages of the social elite and the ruling class, I can understand Israels concern. No doubt the rest of the world will sit back tight lipped about the whole afair so as to not ruffle any oil producing feathers.

Amen brother.

I wonder if the ACLU will sue on the grounds of descrimination. You have to wonder if in the next six months to a year they will come out with a "friend" of Ken which he can play with when he's away from Barbie. Perhaps a bit far fetched and not anything I would care to see, but these days, ya never know.

Considering the way things are going in the U.S. its a relief to know that if America cease to be a source of Christian influence in the world, that it would not be crippled. It also shows that world efforts to spread the gospel are proving effective.

This is another one of those "Duh!" articles. I just read another article in which Iran says it has four conditions that must be met before it would agree to move its unranium enrichment activities to Russia. Let me guess, the will first of all insist that Israel give up its nuclear weapons and/or leave the land of Israel. What else? Will they demand that the rest of the world pronounce Allah as God and that Mohammed is his prophet? Perhaps they will want assurances, like North Korea, that the U.S. will not attack them with our own Nuclear Weapons. No matter what, Iran always has some demands or conditions that are just plain stupid before they will agree to give up something they consider to be a "right". This is how ALL of the negotiations have gone. They once agreed that they would agree to the move as long as they could ALSO continue enrichment on their own land, as if THAT was going to make everyone feel better. Yeah, like doubling their enrichment activities will make the threat of their obtaining a nuclear weapon go away. They really have a high opinion of themselves if they think the rest of the world is going to fall for that one. Considering that their "conditions for agreement" have always been outrageous I don't see this particular deal going through. The question now is what sanctions will they be able to impose that will have the desired effect, and will sanctions effectively rule out the use of the "military option". What with less than a year before Iran, presumedly, reaches the point of on return, I , for one, doubt that sanctions will sway Iran before its too late. One thing we should also consider is that Syria and Iran have made an agreement to secure or store the others weapons which they wish to keep secret. Prophesy indicates that Damascus would be wiped off the map at some point. I can immagine that a nuclear missile fired from anywhere in Syria would trigger an immediate response from Israel though I believe Israels misslile defense is up to the challenge and would likly thwart such an attempt. Though Syria is not known to have its own nuclear weapons, it is concievable that they could come by one with the help of Iran.

The Iranian president seems to think the United States and Israel conspired to do this. Well, the sectarian backlash is not surprising considering a large number probably got an itch for violence over the cartoon and all.

Here is some of the latest. In the latest article on FOX news. There are all kinds on holes in the terms of this deal. The idea that they were required, under the terms, to keep copies of the manifests on U.S. soil is somewhat disturbing. How many back doors do they need to smuggle biological or chemical weapons onto U.S. soil? And apparently they didn't want the public to know. I like this following statement though. Yes, it's not like our fears and concern was unwarranted. American "Islamaphobia" is justifiable, especially when the recent muslim protests spouted anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and speach. I thought this letter to the president was hillarious and pretty much said it all. There simply has been too much secrecy about this deal to assume that everything is on the "up and up". A review by a 12 man council which is headed by the treasury secretary is not enough assurance for us "Islamaphobes". Read the article here

It seems that after every speach this man gives he rallies the crowd to chanting "death to America" "death to Israel". Even their Highest Imam in Iran did not say anything to correct their president. He simply called for all Shiites to restrain themselves and to not retaliate against the Sunnis because it goes agains Sharia law.

Now he is calling accusing us of terrorist activities? He must really think the Iranians are dumb. I sure hope they see through the lies that he is spewing. I guess if there were riots in Iran we could assume that they believed him but untill then we should assume that they didn't fall for it.

I agree. I am not cautious of Arabs because of their race, not any more than I would be someone from Indonesia or North Africa. Muslims come from various races and every race of Muslim has shown how violent they can be when insulted. It may not set well with some that we would consider profiling but is there a better way? Under these circumstanced I would rather apear overly cautious than dumb. I for one do not want a Muslim dominated country (or company) controlling what comes in and out of one of our ports let alone six of them. The media has had many guest speakers, on this show and that, talking about China and other countries running ports in the U.S. for many years and they say its working well. But they don't tell you (remind you) about all the top secret technology that is/has been stolen or sold to the Chinese and other coutries. I personally don't mind if ANY of them own a convenience store or restaurant but they don't need to each own or run even a peice of what our leaders consider "vital infrastucture". Then there's Bush who claims to have known nothing about the sale untill the rest of us found out about it and yet he comes out with both guns blazing saying he will veto any bill that opposes the sale? Whats up with that? I personally take offense to his shrugging of the oppinions/concerns of our other ELECTED officials. I too, doubt very much that he was clueless about the deal all along considering his gung-ho attitude about it after having only JUST hearing about it.

Now THATS a good point! Where are the the advocates of separation of church and state now? Wheres the ACLU to press the government to stay out of religion, even in other countries?

This just keeps getting better. Reuters has an article that says that according to Scott McClellan, Bush didn't find out about the deal until AFTER the deal was made, yet Bush still threatened to veto any bills designed to stop it. How dumb do they think we are? From what I have heard, congress only wants the sale to be thoroughly scrutinised before proceeding with it. I for one am NOT ready to take this administrations' or the White Houses word on it. This deal is shrouded in too much secrecy to be considered in the best interests of the nation. At this point I am all for a moratorium on the sale until the public can be show without a reasonable doubt that security will not be an issue. Perhaps Bushs' cabinet wants another 9/11 so they can once again try to justify prolonging the current wars.

I am somewhat curious how tax cuts stimulate the economy considering that 95% of all Americans don't see the difference untill they file their taxes. Theres no doubt that almost everyone will spend their tax return, those who get one, and that may help the economy, but I can't see how it would "stimulate" it.