Haven't been here in a while.
& I was surprised there was nothing about this whole port issue.
I couldn't find anything, atleast.
If I missed it, please redirect me.

A United Arab Emerites company (DP World) may be taking over some U.S. ports. This definitely raises securty concerns. The UAE has ties to al Queda, though they are the US's ally.(i.e. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were born in this country.)

Another 45 day review.

Are we being too cautious, simply because they are middle eastern? Is it possible to be too cautious considering terrorists since 9/11? etc.

Just curious as to everyone's opinions on this. I've been hearting about it on the news non-stop.

Yet another potential interested UAE firm???WIll it be blocked this time too?

quote:

UAE is home to state sponsered terror

Since when? UAE is basically a tourist nation. It's run like a business. The 9/11 hijackers happened to use an aiport there. Well, guess what? The same hijackers used an airport in Boston. I guess Boston sponsors terrorism too.

The deal is dead. Anyways.

Capitalism is Capitalism.And America should know that best!The highest bidder gets the reward!The Court and Congress should not interfere...

I like how washington refuses to unilaterally denounce terror... they say it all the time but they never follow through... UAE is home to state sponsered terror... but we like them because we can run military ops out of their country and they are crucial to success in other countries. Saudi Arabia is another large participant in state sponsered terror, and so is Bahrain. But we arn't doing shit about them.

I havent been on in a while.


The situation with the UAE(DP World) taking over six american ports has its just cause for raised alerts of some or most of Washington politicians. I for one have my doubts and conclusion to the situation. Yes the UAE has its ties to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations, they also provide safe haven for their operations as well. We have every right to be cautious of who we are opening our ports, as well as the country to for business; the main focus though should be if they are suitable for such operation in our ports; not on the basis that they are of middle-eastern disent. Ethnicity has no justifiable means in regard as to open trade and thus shouldn't be a foundation as such to disqualify any coherent and honest form of cooperation of such.

It is good that we are exercising caution, but that caution shouldn't be the final assesment of a legit and seemingly honest practice of free trade amongst two nations.

The only thing I see wrong with it is the future possibility of any attacks and the effects of those on our ports. I mean, if the ports are attacked while the UAE has control of them, would that spark yet another war? I'm sorry for sticking my neck out and saying this, but the US is not as self-reliant as it should and can be.

We're kind of talking about it on the "I hate Geroge Bush" thread or whatever it is called.

I view America's reaction is completey discrimatory and wrong. For once, I agree with Bush and think he is in the right.

having people born in the country does not mean that country has links to terrorism. Islam transcends national borders, many will consider themselves a muslim 1st and then a syrian, an iraqi etc.

I salute the extrodinary progress being made in the UAE, its truly a wonderful place and they should be able to pursue whatever business interests they like.