|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 154 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 143 of 154:
| 
Mar 10 01:19 UTC 2006 |
looks like the UAE deal is dead. The people in Dubai are pulling out
after the House voted overwhelmingly on a bill that would have blocked
the deal. UAE now says they will sell their interests in U.S. port
operations to an american company.
Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it illegal for
foreign countries to own ANY vital U.S. infrastructure, such as
ports.
Bush had no chance on this issue because everyone in the House has to
get re-elected this year, and none wanted a "you let the arabs take
over our ports" noose put around their necks by their opponents.
|
bru
|
|
response 144 of 154:
|
Mar 10 03:55 UTC 2006 |
I wonder how such a bill will effect the security industry since Wackenhut
handles a large portion of the security (even the DHS office is patrolled by
Wackenhut guards, adn Wackenhut is a british owned company.)
|
klg
|
|
response 145 of 154:
|
Mar 10 03:58 UTC 2006 |
Are you sure about that Hillary Rob 'em Clinton item?? The deal wasn't
for ownership of the ports. It was for operation.
Everyone in the House doesn't have to get re-elected. Some congressmen
are retiring.
|
slynne
|
|
response 146 of 154:
|
Mar 10 04:16 UTC 2006 |
I admit that I dont know a lot about this deal. I do know that UAE are
well known for managing their own ports very well. Part of me wonders
how much this house vote was based on prejudice and if it would have
been voted down so overwhelmingly if the company that wanted to run the
ports was European or something. On the other hand, it probably is a
good idea from a security point of view to have such important
infrastructure run by American companies.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 147 of 154:
|
Mar 10 13:19 UTC 2006 |
I also do not know a lot about this situation. There seems to be a lot
of conflicting information. For example, some people are saying that
UAE shouldn't control ports because they won't let Isrealis use them.
And then we have a chairman of Israel's largest shipping firm endorsing
the ports deal.
It seems that this issue has become less about finding the truth, and
more about flinging egg onto each other's faces.
|
twenex
|
|
response 148 of 154:
|
Mar 10 15:36 UTC 2006 |
It is truly pathetic and contemptible than Congress and the American people
whinged on about this and screamed blue murder after all the damage they have
let Bush & Co. do so far.
|
richard
|
|
response 149 of 154:
|
Mar 10 16:15 UTC 2006 |
The Hillary Clinton bill would make it law that we run our own ports. No more
chinese running the ports in California, no more british running ports in the
east. In these times, we must run and control our own infrastructure. These
countries were paying a premium for the honor of running our ports, but
sometimes things are about more than business
\.
|
klg
|
|
response 150 of 154:
|
Mar 10 17:06 UTC 2006 |
Too bad she can't even convince her husband.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 151 of 154:
|
Mar 10 17:26 UTC 2006 |
What seems not to have been answered yet - or I haven't seen it - is exactly
what it means for the UAE (or another other entity) to "run" ports. Who does
what and what are the financial arrangements? There must be some savings to
somebody for these foreign entities to "run" the ports, but what to whom? So
far, it has been mainly sound and fury, signifying little (to avoid
plagarism....).
|
tod
|
|
response 152 of 154:
|
Mar 10 20:36 UTC 2006 |
I see this as GW played wicked witch of the west and said "How about a lil
fire, scarecrow" when he pointed the finger at anybody who dissented at his
kneejerk prejudice tactics. Now, they're throwing it back in his face and
he's screwed.
|
gull
|
|
response 153 of 154:
|
Mar 18 01:10 UTC 2006 |
I agree with todd on this one. The irony is sweet.
|
wilt
|
|
response 154 of 154:
|
May 16 23:52 UTC 2006 |
HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
|