I agree. I don't see how it could be a good idea. >I have a problem with this, not just because of the fact that it is the UAE >involved (which HAS to add a level of security concern. 2 of the hijackers >were from there. The nuclear materials shipped from Kahn in Pakistan went >through ports in the UAE. There ARE people there who DO NOT LIKE US), but >because there is a foriegn government involved (you can often trust >independant companies to do what is in their monitary best interest. Govs >are not so predictable), because there was not enough focus paid to this >issue (Bush didn't know about it until it started appearing in the papers, >nor did anyone in Congress). > >But the main problem I have with it is this SECRET committee that is >deciding these things. Who are they? Do we trust THEM? Are they career >employees, or are they political appointees making these decisions? If they >are political employees, what ties do they have to the companies they are >making decisions about. Did they actually DO ANY RESEARCH into whether this >is a problem, or did they just rubber-stamp it? 23 days does not seem like a >lot of time to research such a decision. > >I want everyone to step back, shine a little light on this, make the process >more transparent, take some more time, and think this through. > >If, after they have done this, and the decision is still that this is a good >idea, then I say - go for it. But I want a little more due diligence done >here. This is friggin important. > >On 2/22/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:197802 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
