This just doesn't seem like a good thing, letting an arab country's people have any control of our ports.

Just 'cause you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Firsty

OMG, Dick Cheney shot someone?

This isn't a bad thing. Economic Interdependance establishes peace. The UAE has just invested 7 billion dollars into America. If they or their citizens screw with us it means they lose their 7 billion dollars. We now have leverage over them, that's a good thing.

I second NRAforever's thought. I also second the alias NRAforever, hear, hear. Forever and a day!

It's not like the port is being outsourced to Arabia. Or that the port is coming "under control" of the UAE (which has been quite supportive of our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere). A port in the U.S. usually is run by a company, foreign or otherwise, within the laws and protocals of the U.S.. From my understanding the port is already "run" by a British company, and the UAE company is just doing what companies trying to maximize profits do. Plus, from what I read the UAE group wants to keep the current management in place. The Dems and some Republicans are demagoguing this. Don't believe your inner Schumer.

More importantly, if the UAE screws with our ports, we pull our military from their country ("their" military consists largely of American forces), and their border disputes with Saudi Arabia and Iran end in either a larger Iran or larger Saudi Arabia.

Despite that, I think putting our ports' security in the hands of a foreign government (DP World, the company that bought the British one, is owned and run by the Dubai government) is foolish at best, and I too feel dirty for agreeing with Shumer...

does this mean that the Mafia will have to give up the current control it has on the docks?

I'm not saying "don't ask questions" and I'm not even saying "trust your government, they ARE the government and they're here to help." What I AM saying is: This decision wasn't resolved overnight or didn't just pop up on the radar scope... and I suspect strongly that the committee that examined this proposal actually might have considered security aspects as part of their decision tree. And they probably had a tad more information than we've gotten from our kick-ass media and Michael Savage.

I think there are reasonable concerns, but, as usual, the public response is a sky-is-falling-everyone-involved-is-incompetent approach that so endears the left to me.

Oh come on!It's clearly a conspiracy to make money, like everything that evil genius ChimpyMcBusHitler DOES! But I figured it out cause he's so stupid, like "Feux news"!

Isn't it obvious? Think about it man! Dubai.....Dubia....DUBYA!!!!!!!!

He made up a country so he could control his own country's ports to drive up the defecit because he's EVIL!!

something about Halliburton! Torture blah! Wealth gap! blahblah

Oh and RACIST!

NRAforever,

Love the nic. Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at.

The governing body that makes these decisions is headed by the Treasury Department. They want to bring the money in, but I think they aren't as concerned with safety as some of the other members of that board. The ports are so loosely controlled now. And if you think that the "Law of the Land" is going to stop an islamocentric government from aiding terrorists, you're wrong. They would have no fear of the law, which is barely enforced anyway.

The running of 8 MAJOR American ports, by those sympathetic to Islam and perhaps some of its most dangerous elements, does not fill me with ANY kind of confidence. I see dark clouds on the Horizon and am considering a loan to pay for a .50, just in case.

Oh, and if you have a pool building business, I'd like to talk fallout shelter prices.