[threeleftsmakearight]

I'm opposed on several fronts.
First, on priciple. I don't think they've been honest actors when it comes to terrorism. Who were those AE princes "hunting" with bin Laden? Do they regret being used as a transhipment point for the AQ Khan network? Or, as a bin Laden pass-thru point? The Taliban angle. The banking angle. The tipping terrorists off that CIA are waiting for them angle.
Second, security, yes security. While I don't believe they would pay Billions for the chance at committing terror acts, I doubt they would be as strict on background checks of employees. Also, operating terminals at the ports gives employees info about how security works. And, they get to not have to keep their books and documentation here, it gets sent back home to God knows whom...

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Sorry I missed this post before I just posted to you. Please forgive.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Appreciate your reply. I disagree with you on one key point that comes to mind. In particular, where and or when do you start to trust a country that has been a strong ally in the region. How can we trust anyone in the world? The shoebomber was a Brit.

I suspect in many ways we agree on more things than we realize.