What's up with the port deal?
(Please feel free to refute any of these arguments as you wish)
In non-technical terms, or anything, here is the story in a Q & A.
What's going on?
-Some UAE(United Arab Emirates) based company (politicians stress the fact that it is owned) wants to take over control of some US port terminals.
What's the problem with that?
-US congress along with the public (some web-based polls) feel it threatens national security
-DP(the company that is taking over) is owned by the UAE
What's wrong with that?
-Two of the 9/11 hijackers are from the UAE.
Is that it?
-No. Some Dubai-based banks were allegedly used to finance the 9/11 terrorists.
-Well, the US does not want its sea ports to be controlled by a country that has links to terriorists.
No country wants that.
So why don't they reject the deal?
-The president of the US is backing up the deal.
But I thought the UAE has got links to terriorists?
So, why is the president backing up the deal?
-He thinks UAE is a major ally in the war on terror.
But the UAE has got links to terriorists?
-Yeah, I said that already!
So how come a country that has got links to terriorists could be a major ally in the war on terror?
-Welcome to the world of US politics!
-Well, it is obviously the case that based on the fact that two of the hijackers were from the UAE, US lawmakers feel it is a threat to let DP have control over the ports. At the same time, UAE is a major ally in the war on terror.
So, it sounds like you're saying that anyone from the UAE could be considered a threat to US National Security?
But what if one of those terriorists bought a McChicken from MCdonandls, does that mean McDonalds has got links to terriorists?
To be continued