The American Spectator

This nation, and certain long time allies, find themselves in a war, not with nations, but with a religion-based culture. A significant number of the leaders of which are not hesitant to use violence to maintain their power and even to expand it. This culture is bound together by the religion of Islam. The debate over the essential nature of Islam, peace or war, is best left for another time. What is significant here is the fact that the UAE is an autocratic government with a strong Islamic identity and they are controlling partners in Dubai Ports World.

The question is, if this war heats up, who will the UAE cast its lot with? Will it be the secular, and non-Muslim, nations of the West? Or will it be the staunchly Islamic peoples in the world? And if they choose the latter, what harm can be done to this nation by having a state owned company from Dubai in control of major ports in the U.S.?

It is for these reasons that the White House must justify its decision to allow this transaction to continue. And at the least, some of the reasons have to be made publicly. The President must assuage the concerns of the citizenry as to the benefits of this action. Recent history should have driven this point home very clearly, by now.

p>I will reserve final judgment on the advisability of placing this company in control of the ports in question, providing the administration provides the answers to some questions. Though, I must say, that I see little to recommend allowing this to continue. This endeavor is every bit as foolish, at this time, as continuing our overwhelming dependence on oil from countries that support our adversaries in this war. It is past time to take serious steps to provide for the security of this nation. br> — Michael Tobias br> Ft. Lauderdale, Florida /p>

Meaning no slight to the excellent Mr. Homnick, I would offer a few thoughts in the ongoing Dubai debate:

1) Chuck Schumer vigorously opposes the acquisition of the British management company by interests in the UAE? Last time I checked, the absolute best reason for supporting SDI was that the very thought of such a thing sent the Kremlin Commissars into a paroxysm of spittle-spraying fury. They were correct — the USSR is now consigned to the dustbin of history and “Leningrad” is once again known as “Saint Petersburg.”

2) Nothing changes, except into whose coffers the profits go. Is the news reported in the Washington Times any less accurate because Reverend Moon fronted the money for it?

p>3) Even assuming that all of the critics’ misgivings are valid, I know of many a small-town police chief or sheriff who headed trouble off at the pass by hiring/deputizing local rowdies as soon as they came of age. Poachers seem to make the best game-wardens. br> — David Gonzalez br> Wheeling, Illinois