VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

So what do you guys think, agree or not? And why?

Personally I don't think it would really change anything, except getting alot of people worked up.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

I just heard Hillary spewing rhetoric about how Bush wants to handover our ports to foriegners, which was met with boos.

If I'm not mistaken, they were already run by foriegners. Not to mention that the west coast ports are run by the Chinese.

What would be different about Britian, China and the UAE?

The Emerates are Arab, why didn't she say what she meant, "George Bush wants to handover the ports to Arabs!"

Hooray for beuracratic spin! :banana:

Just when I thought maybe she was starting to make a little sense.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Hell no!

First of all the word "Arab" is in country's name. If that isn't the biggest red flag then I don't know what is?

I could go on forever but a lot of UAE's people are Iranian and some 95% are Muslim. No way in hell should they have any control over anything American. I don't even think China should have a hand in anything American. And for those that say,"Well what about Britain?" EAD! It’ll probably be from the same people that spewed “America is all about capitalism and free market” from the ban SUVs thread. You know damn well Britain isn't nearly on the same page as UAE.

MonkeyAB

iTrader: (1)

Even not considering the entire terrorism aspect, I would like to see amn American company in charge of this rather than a company that is based in the middle east.

In theory there isn't a problem with it, but this is the real world and there are too many unknowns here. On one hand we shouldn't live in fear, but we shouldn't tempt fate either.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

As much as I don't really care because I think security will be fine (it'd still be handled by Americans from what I can tell), I'd prefer to lessen our reliance on middle eastern countries rather than increase it. The sooner we don't need them economically, the easier it will be to avoid conflict (military or otherwise) with them.

So I voted 'I don't know'

dub2w

I am almost positive that China has a law that states that no foreign entity can manage ports.

We should follow course, and restrict ownership to US firms only. Creating exceptions for other predominantly WASP nations probably wouldnt help our standing in international politics.

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

I believe it's a Chinese group that owns the majority of the West Coast ports.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Well put.

And honestly, how hard is it to make it an American owned operation when we're dealing with our own ports? Seems like it would be a logistical pain in the *** to bestow responsibility to a country halfway across the world. I can’t see it being a cost issue either. It’s not like Dubai is also importing migrant workers that expect lower pay than the immigrant work force we already have here in America. Seems like a common sense decision to me. That being said I’m sure someone will **** it up somehow.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Responsibility for what though? To tell american longshoremen what to put where? How much more of a pain in the *** would it be for a company from Abu Dhabi than one from Britain or China?

Noboby is arguing against an american port managment firm shouldn't be doing the job, but the reality of it is there isn't one.

Maybe Haliburton or Bechatal should take on port operations.
No way would we be discussing this if that were the case.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

My point if we've converted old sewing machine companies full of women into full scale arms manufacturing plants then we shouldn't have any problem getting up to speed.

SilverScoober02

Very good point.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

That was long before globalization and multi national corporations.