Both good and bad.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

To be fair, it is the United States Coast Guard that is responsible for the general security of all our ports, whether run by an American company or another.

There is one important thing to note, of course. The big six ports in the deal involve terminal control. What many outlets miss is the stevedoring (loading and unloading) of commercial ships at different ports. This means that 22 ports, not 6, will be under some UAE control. Going down the seaboard:

Portland, Maine
Boston, Massachusetts
Davisville, Rhode Island
New York City, New York
Newark, New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Camden, New Jersey
Wilmington, Delaware
Baltimore, Maryland
Newport News, Virginia
Norfolk, Virginia
Portsmouth, Virginia
Miami, Florida
Tampa, Florida
New Orleans, Louisiana
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Beaumont, Texas
Port Arthur, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Houston, Texas
Freeport, Texas
Corpus Christi, Texas

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48991

[Dinner]

So here is a more important question. Should port operations be privately owned or would they be better off under public ownership?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Another note: Norfolk is the US's (and the World's) largest Naval station.

What this means is:

if two guys who are disenfranchised by the United States and its mission in the middle east, and they are employed by this UAE company, they could get in a dingy and drive explosives into the hull of one of 75 ships that station in Norfolk when not on duty.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrFun
China has financial connection with the U.S. deficit, and now a company in the UAE, along with other companies from China and Signapore will manage some of more important ports.

All of these types of infiltration of our country's infrastructure and economy that have ocurred, and more that will likely occur in the future, only makes our country more vulenerable to our enemies, and to our "allies" who still have their interests to look after that contradict our interests.

America is only getting the meal it has been serving for a century.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So here is a more important question. Should port operations be privately owned or would they be better off under public ownership?

That is the unasked question that has been deafening us all with its silence is being unasked.

Oerdin, I salute you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
if two guys who are disenfranchised by the United States and its mission in the middle east, and they are employed by this UAE company, they could get in a dingy and drive explosives into the hull of one of 75 ships that station in Norfolk when not on duty.

Let's be honest here Fabu. No Arab company would be acceptable to you, would it?

[Sava]

no foreign company would be acceptable to me

why can't AMERICANS defend AMERICAN ports?

are we outsourcing the defense of our nation now?

absolutely absurd

I have no problems with foreign security companies helping with consulting or something... but HANDLING THE ACTUAL SECURITY? THIS IS THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT US. NOT A FOREIGN COMPANY.

But to the strawman about racism

BTW, I saw on one of the cable news shows that UAE was responsible for some 9-11 funding...

they are an "ally" the same way Saudi Arabia is...

I'd trust them as far as I could throw them

but hey, if Repukes want to outsource protecting America to the UAE... to that

let the blood be on their hands

[Sava]

it's like asking the Japanese Navy to guard Pearl Harbor in the time before dec. 7, 1941

BUT WHATEVER

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
I have no problems with foreign security companies helping with consulting or something... but HANDLING THE ACTUAL SECURITY?

They aren't handling security. That job is still under the Coast Guard and Customs. But why let that get in the way of a rant.

[Sava]

well

i dont know anything

so what else is new

i'm not aware on the specifics... obviously

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's be honest here Fabu. No Arab company would be acceptable to you, would it?

If we're being really honest, I would prefer an American company above anyone.

And that's not to say that even then it couldn't happen. However, I am wary of the fact that not one mile from where I live ships carrying very dangerous gases will be loaded and unloaded by a company from a country that doesn't seem, to me, to be a completely sincere ally.

Though I would love to visit Dubai. Its on my list.

[Patroklos]

if two guys who are disenfranchised by the United States and its mission in the middle east, and they are employed by this UAE company, they could get in a dingy and drive explosives into the hull of one of 75 ships that station in Norfolk when not on duty.

You understand of course, that the fact that a bank account in Dubia makes a transaction to a bank account in London that makes a transaction to a bank account in Norfolk will make such persons jobs no easier.

I like how this non-issue, which the Democrats here blatently admit, is the only thing they can get traction out of.

[Sava]

I think it's just hilarious that Repukes want to outsource the security of our ports... that's bad enough... but to a country with terrorist ties...

It's just insane.

And anyone who opposes this idea is "a racist".

Pretty much standard Republican crap...

but it's good because they are digging their own political graves

what's even more hilarious (or sad) is that the Democrats will barely be able to take advantage of this, politically...

[Patroklos]

Though I would love to visit Dubai. Its on my list.

The place is great, though a plane ticket there is expensive as hell.