Should a foreign company run our ports?

[RiverwoodCLT 359]

With all the fire works about a UAE company ok by Bush, run our ports, my question is, why are we not running these ports ourself.

Will congress step up and do their job and stop this?

[Snowguy716 0]

Well, Bush's friends will take a lot of money to the bank with this deal, so it is no wonder why he approves of it.

Our Secretary of Energy, John Snow has big connections with the company that is being taken over, and will likely make money off of it. Also, a big stockholder in the company being taken over is the Carlisle group, which employs George H.W. Bush. He stands to make a decent sum of money off this deal.

It is clear to me that Bush cares more about his friends and their bank accounts than national security or who runs our ports. of course congress should put a stop to it.

It's time for Republicans in congress to stand up for themselves and do the right thing. They'll be a better party for it.

[dpbaker 1]

With all the fire works about a UAE company ok by Bush, run our ports, my question is, why are we not running these ports ourself.

Will congress step up and do their job and stop this?

They'd better stand up to it!!!

[Gusterfell 0]

It's time for Republicans in congress to stand up for themselves and do the right thing. They'll be a better party for it.

Many are starting to... and Bush is vowing to veto any attempt to block the transfer. I hope he does. I really hope Bush's only presidential veto ever will be to sell our national security to the UAE. The image that he is "strong on homeland security" is the only leg Bush has to stand on with the majority in this country, and this issue is blatant proof that the emperor has no clothes.

[billpa 0]

HOLD ON!

Why wasn't this question asked before? Our ports have been managed by a company from Great Britain for years----We are not at war with the United Arab Emirates.

What exactly do you think will change with a different management company at the ports?

[monsoon 0]

There is a big big difference between Great Britian and a dictorship government in the middle east that allowed its banks to finance the 9/11 terrorists where over 3000 people were killed. Don't forget that 2 of the 9/11 terrorists came from there as well.

It is simply mind boggling that our government would turn control of our ports and put American workers under the control of a dictatorship. This President will go down in the history books as the worst ever to hold the office in terms of the bad that he has done to the USA. How people can still blindly support this idiot is beyond me.

[bobdreamz 0]

the fact that many americans didn't even know that P&O of the UK was running operations in the first place is disconcerting...port security & operations should be run only by the US not foreigners.

[Snowguy716 0]

The difference between the company in Britain and Dubai Ports world, is that Dubai Ports world is state run.

I hope he vetoes the efforts by congress too. His only veto in office and it will be handing over the ports to the middle east... wow.

Also.. wouldn't it be entirely possible for congress to override the veto? If both parties are coming together on this, 2/3 wouldn't be hard would it?

[billpa 0]

Two of the 9/11 hijackers did indeed come from the UAE; so what? Tim McVey was from the US.

Are all Arabs terrorists in your opinion?

It seems to be the consensus in this thread that companies from that part of the world cannot be trusted.

I would hope everyone here realizes it is STILL up to the US to ensure security at our ports no matter WHO is managing them. Perhaps you should have your congressmen and women work on that...of course, I don't recall too much debate on our own ability to secure ports until word got out that the "evil Arabs" were going to be in charge of the management.

[Snowguy716 0]

Timothy McVeigh didn't operate a company that harbored terrorists' money and then turn around and take over several of our nations largest ports.

It wouldn't be a big problem if it wasn't our ports, and it wouldn't be a big problem if it wasn't a state run company by a country that is not a democracy and was partially responsible for the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Foreign governments should not be running our nation's ports.

[billpa 0]

Money was laundered in the UAE, but Hamburg in Germany was also a so-called "plotting center". Would you have the same objections if a German company were to take over management of the ports in question?

And please tell me how the government of the United Arab Emirates was partially responsible for 9/11. Because of the governments lax regulatory stance that allowed the money laundering to go undetected?

[Snowguy716 0]

Actually, yes I would. I think our nation's ports should be run and managed by the United States. Is that so bad? I think when we run the show, we can ensure security best.

I don't care that the country is Arab. I do care, however, that the company is run by a "King" that wields power over millions of people that have no say in his doings or his removal from power if need be.

Would you want Cuba to be running our nation's ports? What exactly has Cuba done to the United States that has been such a big threat that our government seems to warn us about all the time? Of course that question is rhetorical.

If their neo-liberal stance on economics in the UAE allowed terrorists to launder money there, live there undetected, and then fly passenger planes into three buildings and kill 3000 people, then I guess they have some serious thinking to do about the way they handle their economy.

While I don't support "spying" on people or "wire tapping" them... they should at least be documented as living there.. and if they are deemed a credible threat to anybody in the world, a warrant should be issued and further proof should be found.

I say this, because I see a tiny loophole where someone could come in and attack me for being "anti-spy" in one thread and "pro-spy" in another.

[billpa 0]

I wouldn't want Cuba running the ports because they've not shown they could run a not-for-profit car wash.

But to suggest that illegal activity within one's borders means the government is somehow responsible for any eventual outcome is certainly a stretch...Money laundering occurs in the United States and likely leads to all sorts of bad things, but that doesn't mean the US government is somehow unable to spin off a national operation that would manage ports.

Many of the 9/11 hijackers, as you know, also lived here in the US for quite some time as well---again, blaming one government and not another for basically the same thing is simply not consistant.

And again, the SECURITY of America's ports are now and will be dealt with by the Dept of Homeland Security. The inspections of what's coming into the US is now and will be conducted by US customs officials. The people who actually work at these ports are now and will be Americans, many members of the Longshoremans' unions.

[dpbaker 1]

Wow! This really has become quite the political firestorm!! It sounds like both sides in congress are working on legislation to block this action, and Bush is threatening to veto any such legislation.

I've gotta say after listening to radio, watching the news, etc., these past few days that there are good arguments on both sides. Security will be and always has been handled by the U.S., it's the terminal operations that are being whored out.

I don't have a problem with a foreign company being involved with U.S. operation like this, but I have to agree with Snowguy on his point that it shuld be a country commited to democratic ideals like us. Apparently UAE has been a "valuable ally" in the war on terror, whatever that might be and to whatever extent, I know not. Some say to cut this transaction would be a slap in the face to our ally and alienate them. Others say they are not a good ally and have impeded us, including blocking attempts to track terrorists within UAE borders. Who knows what the truth is.

Let's just say that I haven't seen any actions by Arab nations that instills a great deal of confidence in me.

[ironchapman 1]

Wow! This really has become quite the political firestorm!! It sounds like both sides in congress are working on legislation to block this action, and Bush is threatening to veto any such legislation.

I've gotta say after listening to radio, watching the news, etc., these past few days that there are good arguments on both sides. Security will be and always has been handled by the U.S., it's the terminal operations that are being whored out.

Exactly. Dubai Ports World would only be in charge of the ports' commercial operations. The security of the ports would still be the Coast Guard's job.

I don't think I'd have a problem with this. The only thing that would be changing is the company that runs the ports' commercial operations.

It's not as if this is an unusual thing for foreign companies to run terminals at our ports. At the port of Los Angeles, I believe 80% are run by Chinese companies.

[monsoon 0]

Our ports should not be under control of foreign governments, period. Much less a government that is a dictatorship and subject to the whims of a family that is not accountable to anyone.

The only people, let me repeat, the only people that thinks this is a good idea is the Bush Administration. Given that nothing else the Bush administration has said has been true, I don't believe them on this issue either.

[billpa 0]

The only people, let me repeat, the only people that thinks this is a good idea is the Bush Administration.

That's simply not true.

People and experts within the shipping industry have no problem with this plan, at least the experts about whom I've read.

What you have here are a bunch of people who don't want Arabs being associated with our ports in any way whatsoever. The title of this tread is actually quite telling: "Should a foreign company run our ports?", as if this was somehow new.

[cityboi 220]

now Bush is saying he wasnt aware of this port deal. He must really think we are dummies. He wasnt aware of the deal yet he is saying he will veto any measure to stop it.

[dpbaker 1]

That's simply not true.

People and experts within the shipping industry have no problem with this plan, at least the experts about whom I've read.

What you have here are a bunch of people who don't want Arabs being associated with our ports in any way whatsoever. The title of this tread is actually quite telling: "Should a foreign company run our ports?", as if this was somehow new.

Right. And the list of people that doesn't necessarily think this is a bad idea includes counter-terrorism experts too. It also sounds like there was a second company based in Singapore that was in the bidding for this, I do not know on what basis one was selected over the other.

That said, I still don't like the idea of ANY foreign company controlling ANY aspect of port operations. But in this case, I guess there were no American companies up to the task.....

[Gusterfell 0]

That said, I still don't like the idea of ANY foreign company controlling ANY aspect of port operations. But in this case, I guess there were no American companies up to the task.....

I don't have many concerns with a foreign company controlling American ports. It is a fact of modern life that any large company is going to be international in practice, regardless of where their headquarters is located. In fact, most American ports are already controlled by foreign companies, and have been for years.

What I do have a problem with is a foreign GOVERNMENT having control of our ports. Dubai Ports World is a government company. It is controlled by a government that harbors terrorists, allows trafficking in illegal drugs, weapons, and sex slaves, among other questionable practices. This is the government that allowed its banks to finance the 9/11 attacks, and then blocked American attempts to trace those accounts.

To make matters worse, the deal does not require Dubai Ports World to keep records of its operations on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. So if there were to be a terrorist attack involving one of these ports, the US would have no way of knowing how the terrorists were able to gain access, who was doing business with who, and so forth.

Bush's support of this deal means the War on Terrorism is over. We surrender.

[PghUSA 0]

I heard a Nobel Peace Prize winner with a D behind his name sees nothing wrong with the Bush proposal . . . who could that be?

[EvanK 0]

What makes me more angry than anything, is that President Bush has basically told the American people in no uncertain words to sit down, shut the fudge up. This is going to happen whether you like it or not.

That, is what pisses me off more than anything. Just this morning a report was on the morning news about how the project had passed the point of no return and could not be stopped now anyway.

Bullcrap!

[Snowguy716 0]

That's exactly the same reaction I had. I think the U.S should have stronger control of our own ports.. but at the same time, I am just really irked that the president, whose friends stand to gain so much from this deal... is just standing there trying to say "Because I said so. Now goto your room."

[PghUSA 0]

I think someone needs to analyze why Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell seem to think this deal is the greatest thing that could happen, to let Dubai run our ports.

Also why if Dubai is such an evil nation is Clinton making 2 speeches over there and AlGore making a major speech in Saudi Arabia nextdoor? Both being paid by the govt's of those nations? If these nations are our blood enemies why is Al Gore and Clinton using blood money to pay for their houses?

I think China is more of a threat running our west coast ports (which they have been for years now) then our major ally in the ME is.

[dpbaker 1]

I have to admit, after listening to the arguments for the past few weeks, I'm changing my original line of thinking. I'm now of the opinion that it probably would have been more favorable for the U.S. to allow this deal to go through. And now that it has been backed off, what do you guys think, particularly those of you who thought this was just another George Bush power ploy?