WASHINGTON (AP) — Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-09-ports-deal_x.htm?csp=34)

great. :nice:

foreign investment in the usa is a good thing, though

Suddenly, we realize that this so-called freemarket economy that some of the GOP supports only has that support as long as the freemarket economy is U.S. dominated.

All those surprised, please say aye.

:|

There is a difference when it becomes a matter of national security. The ports aren't a national security issue, you say? Is the border at Mexico or Canada a matter of national security? The ports are a way of entry, so is the border.

Those who control the manifests of containers, control what comes in.

I never actually saw or read anything conclusively stating the the UAE was a security risk. All I heard were opinions, rumours, and fears.

Not to say that the fears aren't valid, but we didn't have a problem when the ports were owned by a British company, and if the London subway bombing(s) are any indication, it's just as possible for terrorists to infiltrate from England as from an Arab nation.

The only real solid reasoning I can place my finger on for this paranoia (which is not necessarily entirely unfounded, just uncomfirmed) is that they're Arabs. And this country is very strongly anti-Arab right now.

Monster: why do you HATE America?

Eyyy, sit on it! :P

Yes, the country is getting anti-Arab. That is the fault of the practioners of the Religion of Peace: the radicals who preach fatwahs and suicide bombings.

The fear is real. Why do you think the New York Times was afraid to print the cartoons? It wasn't because they didn't want to offend Muslims. It was most certainly because they didn't want their building blown up or their editors killed as they left home for work in the morning.

Look, the fear and anti-Arab paranoia will die down. But if there is another attack, or if Iran blows up Tel-Aviv, it will never go away. The fear as it exists today is real, and it is better to be careful than not.

Not only did the PC leftists at the NY Times not show the cartoons of Mohammad, they recently had a series of front page stories promoting Islam.

What is hypocritical about this situation is that the democrats were fiercely opposed to this based on the race of the people from which the company originates, although their primary effort was to embarass Bush, which is easy to do. These same democrats cry "racism" regarding such common sense policies as "racial profiling."

The fear as it exists today is real, and it is better to be careful than not.

Then why wasn't there as much furor over the ports after the London subway bombings?

Because no one knew they were outsourced. I didn't. Did you or anyone else here?

I wonder what else we have sold off, especially during the 90's and even in the last 6 years. Bush is no protectionist, but there should be a limit to what the government allows to be sold off. Will we outsource our ability to make bullets? How about machine guns for the military? How about tanks? How about Humvees? But I get off track...

Because no one knew they were outsourced. I didn't. Did you or anyone else here?

I bet that Congress did, and they're the ones who voted to block the port sale and are responsible for a good part of this uproar.

There is a difference when it becomes a matter of national security. The ports aren't a national security issue, you say? Is the border at Mexico or Canada a matter of national security? The ports are a way of entry, so is the border.

Those who control the manifests of containers, control what comes in.

Those containers coming into the US are loaded at their ports of origin by the people who live and work in those countries. Having Americans on the receiving end woun't change that. Only a fraction of them can be inspected for many reasons. Even if the deal had gone down, we would have had Americans doing the work here anyway.

The UAE wasn't going to send in thousands of it's citizens to take over the ports anymore than the British did when the held the contract.

This is nothing but politics, and when I hear the Schumers and friends of the world crying about it , it makes me sick. That goes for the Republicans too.

Most of these people couldn't care less about border security, as their history and voting records prove. They jumped on this issue because it was a political winner, and for no other reason. Had the circumstances been a bit different, and if supporting the deal would have scored political points, they would have been out there supporting it.

There are only a handful of represenatives who are really concerned about border and port security, and they're almost all house Republicans from border states.

Yes, the country is getting anti-Arab. That is the fault of the practioners of the Religion of Peace: the radicals who preach fatwahs and suicide bombings.

The fear is real. Why do you think the New York Times was afraid to print the cartoons? It wasn't because they didn't want to offend Muslims. It was most certainly because they didn't want their building blown up or their editors killed as they left home for work in the morning.

Look, the fear and anti-Arab paranoia will die down. But if there is another attack, or if Iran blows up Tel-Aviv, it will never go away. The fear as it exists today is real, and it is better to be careful than not.

True. Those who claimed that the Nazi's were no threat learned the hard way, and after being attacked by Muslims numerous times, we have every right to be concerned about their activities both here and abroad. They have already proven themselves to be dangerous, and willing to murder large numbers of innocent Americans and other Westerners. The time has come to get tough with these fanatics.

I would rather be accused of being a "racist" and insensitive than be asassinated, or watch my fellow countrymen be attacked any day. For the US to ignore the radical Muslim threat would be the height of stupidity and irresponsibility.

I read that it was a 6 port deal, then 21 ports, then 6,....:confused:

Should the Feds take a cue from the UAE and allow for state owned companies to exclusively control our ports?

A case could be made for partial state ownership of any major transport infrastruture.

A case could certainly be made. But, you know as well as I do, that whenever the government gets involved in things, it gets bigger, more political, and more expensive. Leave it to a company looking to make a profit. It'll be run more efficiently. Let government provide oversight.