[commonerX]

My logic, DPW's track record, along with the absence of any strong evidence to suspect otherwise leads me to believe that there will be no significant difference between the service provided by the two companies.

No one is questioning the service ability of the 2 companies.

UAE track record is spotty at best
2 hijackers came from there.
They have laundered money for terrorist groups.
Support Hamas, a know terrorist organization
Don't recognize Israel
Not a democracy.

And no red flags go up in your mind.

The question is:
Can you guarantee that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at the ports owned by Dubai is the same as the chance when the British Company owned it?

[zook]

1. UAE has by most authoritative accounts behaved in trustworthy fashion toward the US since 9/11.

2. The fact that 2 hijackers came from there is virtually meaningless. There are terrorists in England as well.

3. Money laundering was widespread prior to 9/11, not just a Middle Eastern activity. See point 1.

4. Many nations support Hamas financially. I'll bet (though I don't know for sure) that some European nations are currently sending aid to the P.A.

5. Whether or not a nation formally recognizes Israel is really irrelevant. There are many nations, for example, that refuse to formally recognize Taiwan. For the U.S., UAE's position may raise political questions, but not necessarily security or military ones.

7. In my opinion, it is not necessary for a country to be a democracy in order for its companies to do business in the US.

Now, what do you make of the fact that DPW already operates some ports in the US; that Saudi and an Kuwaiti companies do, as well?

What do you do with the fact that DPW will likely be managing British ports?

I suppose I won't persuade you on this, but I'll stick to my assertion that American ports will be just as safe, if not safer, under DPW as under British management.