If it's purely financial, why shouldn't an American based firm be reaping the benefits?
I've read on these threads that only Haliburton would be capable of fulfilling the contract. I'm guessing the reason for that is capital. But wouldn't that be preferable to foreign interests and alleviate all the concern?
Because the contracts are OWNED by a British firm and no American company wanted the contracts at their sale price?
here's a really relevent article exerpt from MM: (and MUST READ also Kathleen Parker's most recent 'death wish' analysis of GB)here's Michelle Malkin:
"Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to the UAE — a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.
From every angle — political, safety, and sovereignty-wise--Dubai Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds sharia law) looks bad and smells worse."
They have purchased the British company that already has the contract for the 6 ports. I, too would vote for Haliburton.
You haven't read yet that no American company bid for the business?
None made a bid. Not even Haliburton.