Bottom Line: Why would the U.S. allow ANY foreign country

[Norquist Nemesis]

any part of our ports?

This is not about a foreign company. It is about a foreign government. Governments change, sometimes overnight.

And while we're looking at a foreign government having direct involvement in the operation and security of our ports of entry....How many ports of other countries does the U.S. government operate?

[LiberalEsto]

1. It's about money.

Greed, oil, money.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Yes, but how will that all play out?

Is it going to line B/C pockets and their buddies? Or is the U.S. economy so far down the shitter that UAE is able to have the upper hand?

I don't get it. Just don't get it.

[BattyDem]

2. I don't get it, either. To be honest, I always assumed that ...

the US Government controlled, operated and secured the ports and simply allowed companies (both foreign and domestic) to use them to do business. I had no idea foreign countries were actually controlling them. :-(

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. You were correct!

And that Bush would hand over our ports to a foreign government is inexcusable.

[politicaholic]

3. From what I understand a British company ran those ports previously...

and is being bought by a Dubai company.

As for international ports being run by the US, I have no idea.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. A British company; not a Government Run Britsh Company

Big difference.

[annabanana]

6. - not a Dubai "company" -

The Dubai "company" in question is wholly owned & operated by the UAE Royal Family. That is to say the COUNTRY of UAE will be managing all those big East Coast ports...

(I wonder how the 'family' deals with the everybody's ubiquitous Crazy Uncle Larry?)

[politicaholic]

13. "Crazy Uncle Larry"...LOL!...

Crazy Uncle Larry could be a wacked out survivalist in the hills of Oregon stock piling guns paid for by his meth lab run by his blind faith followers and he would pale in comparison to Crazy Uncle Osama.

[merwin]

4. Same reason we allow other countries to control our stock market.

You'd be amazed at how much of it is owned by foreigners. There was a part in Farenheit 9/11 about it.

[JCMach1]

9. It's our Repg-libertarian friends

Who think the government role in commerce should be 0.

I disagree profoundly with the racism and xenophobia that has been stirred up by this.

However, I have really wonder why these were ever allowed to be owned by anyone but government entities...

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Then why would they like this?

It's not government out of commerce, but the complete opposite. :shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

11. Bingo. But here's another question---

No state-run company should be controlling our ports. A foreign company, not run by the state, is a different matter, though I still think that letting a foreign company run them is also just plain stupid.

Aside from security issues, shouldn't we be paying our own people to do this work instead of outsourcing those jobs? Wouldn't it be a better economic decision?

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. Wholly agree about who we should have at our ports

Can't disagree one bit on that one!

[shance]

14. Well, "we" are the US, so what are we going to do about it?

I think we need to continue to take out politics and focus more locally and statewide. Every state should be in charge of whatever ports they have or don't have.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. NOLAs going to have a some trouble with that

Fact is, each port is an entry. The same as every point along the north and south borders are.

You're entitle to your opinion...but I couldn't disagree more.