Originally posted by Northgate
First, I think it's a bad idea to have ANY foreign state control our port security. Period. It's been thoroughly documented that security at our ports is one of our HUGE weak links. Our infrastructure has too much at risk to take any chances what so ever.
More specifically, I wil go further by saying that I don't have a problem with American private sector control over the ports, but I have to draw the line when the company in question is a foreign STATE controlled company. That includes M.E. states, Singapore, etc.
Also, let's not forget that the UAE was one a country that formally recognized the Taliban. I think it should also be noted that one of the emmerites was part of Al Qaeda's financial dealings -- with a significant amount of money flowing from UAE to the 9/11 hijackers.
Everyone should be reminded that our embassy in Dubai was completely shut down due to serious terrorist threats.
If that's your position, then fine. I respect that. But if we do allow companies from other nations to run our ports (as they have been doing), then we can't discriminate without a good reason.
Here is the rundown on the UAE's record on terrorism:
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.
Thank god we invaded Iraq!
1. OK, fair enough.
2. So has the Atlantic Ocean. And China's helped out Iran and NK more than UAE ever could have.
3. Imagine the terror money that goes through OUR banking system unnoticed. Maybe we shouldn't control the ports either?
I just don't get the knee jerk reaction here....in other words I agree with goverat. I've seen no good reason to stop this deal. Port security doesn't change, and it's still owned by a foreign company. If someone gives me a good reason we should not allow this to go through, then fine. I just don't see it at present.