Comments on: port deal with the uae, III

By: Steven

Steven — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:38:24 +0000

I was watching MSNBC last night and I discovered an interesting aspect about the deal: zero U.S. companies bidded for the right to operate the port. The UAE company was actually the highest bidder, and even Bill Clinton had spoken with the company about taking the necessary steps and scrutiny in order to obtain the rights (ironic given Sen. Clinton’s lambasting of the decision.) I was heretofore unaware of that, and it changes my perception on the government’s role… although fundamentally I still have a problem with a foreign company operating something as crucial as a port of entry.

By: j.d.

j.d. — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:09:29 +0000

It’s not at all disturbing; in fact, it’s quite routine. Several foriegn countries lease port space in America and have for years. I have no problem with it. I don’t even really have a problem with DPW, but it’s illegal to do business with a company who boycotts Israel.

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:15:25 +0000

To me, the ports controversy was not about which foreign country’s business operated the port, but WHY a foreign business is doing so. I’ve gradually come to accept free trade as a positive process, but this strikes me more along the lines of common sense. Having a Toyota factory in Illinois (or wherever its US headquarters is) is bad enough, but the idea that a company from a foreign country is able to hold influence over one of our ports is incredibly disturbing.