Middle Eastern Country to run U.S. Ports

I don't think there are any american companies that can run port operations. Most of them sold out to international companies over the years, leaving us to outsource our port operations.

Hell, we even have china running some of our ports...

 

Not a great political move by Bush, but I think alot of the reaction is a bit knee-jerkish.

This is NOT a port security and inspection business. This is only port UNLOADING and LOADING business. Security is still handled like it is now, via the Coast Gaurd and other US Agencies. If someone wanted to ship a nuke through, they can just do it via any of the others of hundreds of ports handled by foreign hostile companies and governments.You are still going to have labor controlled by the US Unions, so its not like Mohammed ElBombo is going to have free reign in getting hired without any type of security check.

I don't think this is going to effect the security of out ports if the deal goes through in the least. It just doesn't sound good on the surface without knowing the facts.

 

Halliburton could run them.............but then the DEM's would be going crazy that it's Cheney's Halliburton. Basically, it's a no-win situation here.

I see Bush's point on the yanking a contract from the Arabs on this and how it will show them that no matter how much they cooperate with us in other aspects of foreign policy, we'll never trust them. I get it.

But I think the security risk is too great. Like I said, the UAE can help us do other things but nothing that deals directly with a national security task. Bottom line.

Here's what I wonder though. How much of this DEM outrage is really jockeying for the longshoreman's unions? From what I read, these unions are all up in arms over the deal.......and if the unions are outraged, so follow the DEM's. The Republican outrage I believe is honest questioning like me......I have no cards in this game and neither does Pataki. But with millions in union money coming in to the DNC......hmmmmm....

Bush wants the deal because from what I read today, there is some specific cooperation from Dubai built into this deal that grants us a certain level of access to UAE security information. Like terrorist contacts they may have that we can use to capture bad guys. Stuff like that.

This deal goes much deeper than Dubai running our ports for us. Otherwise, Bush wouldn't be going to the mat over this and neither would the DEM's.

 

I said both sides were outraged........I questioned each side equally.

 

True, but you have to question the motive of some. How is it that people yell racism and discrimination when we talk about profiling arabs in this country, and now many of these same people want to keep this company out b/c they are owned by arabs?

I see no difference between the two, but I see much hypocrisy...

 

I'm speaking of the politicians, not you personally....

 

I don't condemn everything he does. I felt we were justified going into Afghanistan. But I don't think it took some noble leader to make that call. Further, I don't 'condemn' everything he does just because I don't like him. I don't like him because I disagree with nearly everything he does. See? You have it backwards. I supported the assclown for 5 years. If I had been on this board pre-Iraq, I would have been lashing out at the libruls just like you and SF.

*Sigh* I didn't think I'd have to go in such great detail with the explanation. What I said was that the usual Bush-supporters are more up in arms about this than I am. And that's not to say that I don't disagree with it. It just comes as no surprise to me, so I can't possibly get worked up about it the way would-be Bush supporters are. Therefore, the insinuation was that they are not acting like sheeple and going along with it just because W said it was Ok. However, SF is content with such a risky and apparently unwise decision solely on the grounds that it's being pushed by W. Baa-aaa-aaaa-aaaah!

I just felt like this should be repeated for your own benefit.