American Companies Should Handle American Ports

[louis c]

Pre-9/11 thinking put the ports in the hands of foreign companies. Our security is a different matter and mind-set now.

When I enter the State House in Boston, state troopers guard metal detectors and barriers stand at entrances. Before 9/11 this was never the case. I would stroll in and out like it was my mother's house. Airport security and other government buildings have heightened security. INS is now under homeland security, and there is much more scrutiny. I know, I married a woman from another country post 9/11.

Those who say the opposition to the Dubai port deal is racist are full of shit.

No foreign country should guard our borders or have any contract to service our ports in any way. The government should have strict guidelines over even domestic companies and their personnel.

I'm of Italian decent, and I would not consider it racist if an Italian company was denied a contract in securing or servicing our ports. That business should be American and subject to American laws.

To frame this in a way that we owe the UAE a contract to service our ports because they have been an ally for four years is ludicrous. Pakistan has the same record as the UAE. They recognized the Taliban, have 9/11 connections and their government is now a staunch ally of the United States. I guess we should give them the security of the ports of Boston, Charleston and Jacksonville. After all, we wouldn't want to offend our new allies.

What fucking nonsense. Anyone who holds public office that thinks this deal is anything but insanity, Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal or Moderate, should be run out of office.

[napi21]

1. I agree with you, but it seems like no Am Co's want the business!

I asked a similar question last night. Seems like Am Co's used to have all these contracts, but sold out to the highest bidder! Hmmm, does that surprise you????

[louis c]

3. If we can give tax breaks to oil companies

we can find a way to make it attractive for American Companies to do this business.

If we can't, than nationalize the ports, and do it as a government function. It would be cheaper than fighting in Iraq and make us much safer.

[muntrv]

2. American companies

don't seem to be feeling patriotic in wake of 9/11. You would think that some American company would step forward and offer their services, but apparently no takers.

[spindrifter]

4. There are a few American

companies that operate port facilities. SSA in Seattle is one, and apparently there is one involved in the Great Lakes. SSA is privately held but believed to do about a billion in business per year. I think that the issue is more complex than we might think, probably with reciprocal relationships between operators at various points in the trade stream. I think it would be wise for Congress to investigate how we can deal with our ports most effectively from the point of view of state of the art operations, as well as security. We the people should be kept informed along the way.

[WePurrsevere]

5. Agreed, that or our own gov. Ports where foreign goods & people enter

are a type of border crossings if one thinks about it. There should be at least as close a scrutiny of who and what is going in and out of there as at the Mexican and Canadian borders. That scrutiny should be handled by those who have the US and her citizens best interests and well being at heart and that is not ANY foreign country even supposed allies since they change to much from year to year... after all wasn't Iraq an "ally" years ago and with Saddam in charge?

There are more then one excellent reasons for not allowing the UAE contract to go through. To me this one is the most logical, the fact that the UAE has ties and has been buddies with Bin Laden, the Taliban and terrorsts is another more emotional reason based on a rather logical fear because of these ties much as would would feel upon stepping on a rattlesnake's tail out in the middle no where.

[louis c]

6. kick in the morning