Arab Company Taking Over Port in Philadelphia...

[Kim&Chris]

I am SO upset about this.....

http://www.nbc10.com/news/7224277/detail.html


Can you actually believe the Bush Administration went for this???

 

[snowball22]

 

[Planogirl]

There was another thread somewhere that discussed this. It's strange to say the least.

 

[momof2inPA]

Well this tidbit from the article is even more reassuring than past articles.

"Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist."

Even Rick Santorum is against the Arab company running the Philly port, and he never questions President Bush. Apparently, the Philly port is used to transport sensitive government materials that he feels shouldn't be in control of the United Arab Emirates.

 

[Kim&Chris]

I can't believe the stupidity of this action. The US is just asking for trouble in allowing this move.

 

[Poohbear123]

I can't believe the stupidity of this action. The US is just asking for trouble in allowing this move.

Yes they are! The port of Miami is in Jeopardy too, if they are allowed to do this.

 

[KingsFanInRI]

It is only party loyalty that keeps me behind President Bush, and that is starting to carry less weight as it seems everything he touches turns to mush. Still a better choice than John Kerry, but just ONCE I'd like to see W get one right so people would lay off of him for a while. This doesn't appear to be the one.

 

[peepzlz]

eeek...

 

[jfulcer]

blah, blah, blah. There's a reason why people are so starkly ANTI Bush, or anti - anything. They don't bother to get enough information about something before going off about it. We've debated this in this thread here:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1028325&page=1&pp=15

so feel free to add your comments there. It's NOT the UAE that is taking over the ports, it's a COMPANY. Just like any other business.

The ports WERE being run by a company from the UK. Uh-oh, Richard Reid, the 'Shoe Bomber' was from there. OMG, I can't believe we let anyone run our ports that could raise such a miscreant.

 

[Alice Sr.]

It is only party loyalty that keeps me behind President Bush, and that is starting to carry less weight as it seems everything he touches turns to mush. Still a better choice than John Kerry, but just ONCE I'd like to see W get one right so people would lay off of him for a while. This doesn't appear to be the one.

Ditto, defending him is getting harder and harder and this is a real stinker. I can't imagine what the upside is to outsourcing port operations to any other country that would out weigh national security. Maybe they are bating them, I don't know that seems far fetched and given the weakness of our previous clandestine operations I sure wouldn't want to put my eggs in that basket.

 

[richiebaseball]

It's NOT the UAE that is taking over the ports, it's a COMPANY. Just like any other business.

Dubai Ports World is a state owned company. Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?

 

[Alice Sr.]

blah, blah, blah. There's a reason why people are so starkly ANTI Bush, or anti - anything. They don't bother to get enough information about something before going off about it. We've debated this in this thread here:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1028325&page=1&pp=15

so feel free to add your comments there. It's NOT the UAE that is taking over the ports, it's a COMPANY. Just like any other business.

The ports WERE being run by a company from the UK. Uh-oh, Richard Reid, the 'Shoe Bomber' was from there. OMG, I can't believe we let anyone run our ports that could raise such a miscreant.

Hi Jeff I totally agree with

people...don't bother to get enough information about something[/b] before going off about it.

regarding the port operations I would feel a lot better knowing a UK company was in the house rather than a company from the UAE, but that's just me and I am so happy to be able to voice that opinion.

 

[momof2inPA]

blah, blah, blah. There's a reason why people are so starkly ANTI Bush, or anti - anything. They don't bother to get enough information about something before going off about it. We've debated this in this thread here:

So which is Rick Santorum in this case, anti-Bush or uninformed?

 

[jenks0718]

I cant believe this! Is this definately going to go through?

 

[NJBlackBerry]

It means absolutely nothing. A change of ownership. How many of you know that Citgo is 100% owned by PDVSA, the national oil company of Venezuela? Where's the talk about that? Read what their president had to say this weekend?

Get over it. It is a global economy.

 

[Puffy2]

Can you actually believe the Bush Administration went for this???

Yes, considering the lousey track record, I can.

And yes, it absolutely DOES matter that this "global" company is Arab in origin - The Roman's fell when they farmed out their security to "friendly" neighbors..and the US will too if they keep crap like this up.

 

[Kim&Chris]

blah, blah, blah. There's a reason why people are so starkly ANTI Bush, or anti - anything. They don't bother to get enough information about something before going off about it. We've debated this in this thread here:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1028325&page=1&pp=15

so feel free to add your comments there. It's NOT the UAE that is taking over the ports, it's a COMPANY. Just like any other business.

The ports WERE being run by a company from the UK. Uh-oh, Richard Reid, the 'Shoe Bomber' was from there. OMG, I can't believe we let anyone run our ports that could raise such a miscreant.

Ummm...you're kidding with us, right?

 

[jfulcer]

Ummm...you're kidding with us, right?

No, I'm dead serious. As another poster mentioned - it's a global economy with global organizations owning and operating large tracts of American and Foreign interests.

If we wanted to dig, I'm sure that we'd find LOTS of other areas where an international company is handling something that may be considered 'Top Secret' or 'In the Interests of National Security".

Don't you all think that the SAME security checks that happen now will continue to happen? What's to say it's ALL so secure now? Read reports about it. They've been saying since Sept 2002 that the ports need more security. Nobody wanted to do anything about it. But now that DP World is going to be managing, now it's a national disgrace??? How does that work?

Come on, get real people. Get the facts. If you don't like it, write/call your congressmen. I suppose you'd like to give the government MORE power to monitor what comes in and out of the country by doing this.

Oh yeah, sorry. It's all BUSH's fault and his crappy administration. Why didn't the DEMOCRATS complain when this was going through the security vetting? Where were they THEN? Now that it's gonna happen - HEY, great opportunity. It's all BUSH'S fault. I'd bet there were one or two democrats involved in that security vetting. Maybe you should be complaining about THEM????

 

[jfulcer]

So which is Rick Santorum in this case, anti-Bush or uninformed?

I don't know who Rick Santorum is.

 

[jfulcer]

The Roman's fell when they farmed out their security to "friendly" neighbors..and the US will too if they keep crap like this up.

Oh come now, you can't really expect us to continue to listen to quotes like this when we've got this amazing new tool called the Internet to do searches and find valid opinions on this:

There are some adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople.

Since not all viewpoints are available on the Internet, this list of theories about the Fall of Rome is limited:

Decay
Financial Problems
The Dole and Barbarians
Economic, Military, Gradual
Christianity
Vandals and Religious Controversy
Division of the Empire
Lead
Hoarding and Deficit

Nope, don't see 'farming out security to the UAE' in there.