What country is fine with you to run the USA ports?

[uppityperson]

I don't think any other COUNTRY should have control of USA ports. I don't see this as being a company based IN a foreign country, but as an actual COUNTRY itself. I have read and heard that others feel different. So, I picked several countries, some more USA friendly, some less, and am wondering if any of these are fine to control USA ports.

[rpannier]

1. USA and no one else. n/t

[midnight]

22. I agree!!!!!

Nothing else ever will be acceptable.

[Generator]

2. Canada, of course

They are safe, bland and almost like us but nicer. Plus we could outsource the jobs so all of us DU'ers can move there! win win!

[aquart]

5. They'll stop us at the border. They don't want no riff raff.

[darkmaestro019]

15. I hadn't thought of that--and I agree with you about "like us, but nicer"

Though I might amend it to "Like we claim to be, only for real" lol....


Unfortunately, I worry about the little I hear and grasp about "conservatives" having gotten power recently in Canada...I really wish I remembered the poster, but someone on Huffpo was talking about whether you were defined by what you love or what you hate, and I think that's the real definition of what they insist on calling a "conservative" someone who is defined and GOVERNED by what they hate. which, usually, is anyone and anything that is not like themselves.


Incidentally I think it'd result in a great big tempter tantrum from Them to have someone with actual ethics running the ports....hmmm...that would be worth watching.

[progdonkey]

20. trust Canadian govt more than US...

I'd normally have very little problem with Canada controlling any of our ports, for the reasons you mentioned.

With this current Admin proving once again that national security is nothing to them, however, I'd now actively seek out Canadian control of our ports!

I'd trust any Canadian companies or the Canadian govt itself over the Bush junta and its cronies.

[SidDithers]

21. Hey! Who you calling bland...

careful, now, or I'll write a strongly worded letter of disagreement.

:)

Sid

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. Nationalize them.

Put people to work.

The New Deal was Socialism. It worked.

[The Revolution]

17. Agreed.

Why turn control over to a foreign state-run company when we can just create our own? It's not like there aren't Americans looking for work.

[uppityperson]

26. I like this idea. I am not comfortable with even our Canadian friends

running our ports. Canadians can have Canadian ports. It just seems that some things are part of the responsibility of the government for the people it is supposed to represent.

[Capn Sunshine]

4. Shouldn't even be subject to question

Bad enough we only examine 5% of the incoming shipping and don't have radiation detectors anywhere; the ports should be considered a part of the commons and treated accordingly; or State administered.

but no foreign entity should run the ports for profit or anything else.

Damn, that is such common sense it amazes me we have to have this conversation.

Except look who's running things.

[aquart]

7. That's why we're all so stunned.

It NEVER occurred to us that our ports were in foreign hands. Why would it? It's the stupidest idea on the planet.

[uppityperson]

10. Yes, maybe this will get more focus on how little is done for port securit

[mtowngman]

6. I voted Mexico

assuming that's still where pot comes from, dude.

[Wetzelbill]

8. "I'm so ronery"

[CrazyOrangeCat]

11. LOL !!!

God, that's a funnnny song!

[Scairp]

9. Our ports...

Our sole responsibility. What if something like the 9/11 attack had been perpetrated by Americans on a Middle Eastern country? Would they now be hiring an American company to guard their ports less than five years later? This is such a no-brainer it is no surprise the dimwit we have the misfortune of calling "President" at this time can't understand the uproar. The man is a complete and total moron.

[darkmaestro019]

12. All right, I can see a little bit of logic in Mexico/Canada

if one thinks of "port" as "major shipping exchange between borders" as in land-meets-land, since it's their border as much as it is ours.

However, I am pretty sure "port" is "joint where water meets land where ships dock to pick up and drop off stuff" and that's got ONE border--ours. Nobody should run it but the US.

That's ridiculous to even consider letting some foreign country run it.

I tend to view the world as live and let live Earthlings versus Earthlings who want to enslave the other Earthlings--not as separate countries versus one another--but theory and practice are not as close as I'd like, sometimes, and until that's a firm and total reality and not a visualization, it's insane to the point of suicidal to hand over OUR GATE to someone who has their own interests and not ours at heart. I don't give a damn about the drug trade either, for firm and immovable reasons of personal responsibility and pursuit of happiness; it's BOMBS and information and soldiers that I worry about being smuggled.


EDIT: added "don't" to "give a damn" for clarity

EDIT: No, I have no source. But I believe it: most weed smoked in America--is grown in America.

[uppityperson]

14. That's why I put in England Mexico Canada, friendlies and/or locals

As friendly as they are that is. Boston Tea Party part II?

[upi402]

16. The drug trade is what they go after

If a shippment comes in from, say a S. American country, the vans and dogs come out. They look for grugs because the leadership of this country cares about looting all it can.

[darkmaestro019]

24. Of course! Can't have our slaves, I mean citizens

enjoying themselves, escaping the Prison the only way that seems possible. They might start getting all kinds of crazy strange ideas, like, artistic pursuits or direct contact with the divine or revelations of the purpose of existence not quite being to make rich people richer. Why, they might enjoy a warm cuddle with their beloved, or a book, or some such thing that didn't require a credit card to buy! And people might make money without handing their payoff to the benevolent government! People might EAT and live without our permission and without slaving in our plants! We can't have that!


NOTE: Some drugs are worse than others. All drugs should only be eaten by adults, preferably who have read of all the viewpoints of what they are eating will do and why. But anecdotally I must say that I have never regretted the effects/my actions on any drug I have hypothetically ingested--except alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which are legal and cheap and available across the street from where I am typing. But, of course, our loving benevolent government would NEVER allow that if they were safe, and they would ONLY forbid me pursuit of happiness and personal freedom if my private smoking of weed followed by a little writing, good sex, and fantastic sleep were a HUGE DANGER TO THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS HOLY.

EDIT: And anyone who drives on any drug ought to be thrown into a pit of lions.

[upi402]

13. N. Korea voter, I can see you W thru my decoder ring coupled LCD

:crazy: Don't hide George, come out and play. You don't have to hate our freedom!

[Cleita]

18. The ports used to be run by the municipalities they were located

in. The cities or counties brought in the private companies, State and Federal agencies needed to make them work. What changed and when? More importantly, why?

[peacetalksforall]

19. I'm checking airports. I've looked at three that parallel the ports - all

appear to be owned by the city they are in except Miami - Miami is Miami-Dade (Dade being the county).

Aren't the airports parallel to ports? Why were six ports contracted (sold to?) to foreign entities.

There is so little we know of the facts in this event. We are voting and talking off the top of our heads?

I want the U.S. to handle both the airports and the ports. So how did we get to where we are?

And no one has settled the point about whether the concern is operations or security. Everyone uses the terms interchangeably.

Pro-UAE people keep saying operations, everyone else mostly refers to security.

How can you operate without being totally involved in security?

Who has authority over whom?

It's one thing to handle click-click movements of goods. It's another to plan. It's another to budget. It's another to handle nature as in hurricanes or tornadoes (or the soon to rise seas). It's another to handle unions and strikes or demonstrations or diseases.

At every step security is essential.

Who gave the contract to the British in the first place - Clinton?

[nebula]

23. Any country that doesn't have a known history of supporting

and/or being a base for terrorist operations?

That would, or at least it should, automatically disqualify the UAE
from even being considered to run US ports.

[Armstead]

25. USA Goddamit -- I'm not an ultra nationalist, but we're losing our country

[uppityperson]

27. 83/93 vote USA. Thanks for taking the survey

[Raine]

28. Other than the US running it's own ports

the only other countries I would be fine with would be Canada and the Scandinavian countries.

[SeattleGirl]

29. The USA. They're OUR ports, and WE should run them.

WTF is up with even considering allowing another country to run our ports? I don't care what country it is, it isn't right. If the gubmit thinks another country does a better job than we do in running their ports, why not talk with them, and see if they would be willing to share with us what they do, but for God sakes, don't turn the port over to another country.

What the hell is wrong with these people?