I need an opposing view, because I don't understand the debate here.
Here's what I think I understand of the facts:
The private British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought out by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates governmentally owned company. This means that the port terminals formally owned by P&O are now owned by DPW. The UAE is a US ally, but they don't do an exceptional job at controlling terrorism.
Before I looked into it, I thought yeah, this is a bad idea. But then, I did more research.
They own a terminal at a port, not the entire port. So basically, they own a spot to load and unload cargo. The people loading and unloading the cargo at the US port terminals would be US longshoremen. The person running the terminal would be a US citizen. All cargo coming into the US would be subject to customs and inspection by the Port Authority and the Coast Guard, just like cargo coming into any other port terminal. The ships that would be delivering cargo would come from all over the world, not just UAE. The only difference would be the parent company collecting the revenue and paying the bills. There are other foreign companies that own port terminals, and some of those companies are at least partially owned by foreign governments.
Knowing this, I don't understand what the fuss is. Are the people complaining just not well informed?
And I don't understand what we can do about it, not let them have terminals at US ports? I would think that would effect international trade. And, then we'd have to decide if they really are an ally or not. How can you call someone an ally but not let them have the same privileges as other allies?
I'm confused as to what the debate is and am looking for an opposing viewpoint.
I don't always trust Bush, or any other president for that matter, but in this case I don't understand what the concern is. The only thing I can come up with is that these are Democrats (for the record, I'm neither, I'm pretty much smack dab in the middle, I call myself a Centrist) that just want to have something else about Bush to oppose, and haven't done any research on what exactly the buyout means.
As you know, I'm NOT back yet, but I can't help but peruse the forum every so often from the couch (by the way, I will be back on Monday, I'm just milking it at this point).
I've stayed away from the Port situation, and when I saw someone had posted on it today I got a knot in my stomach thinking "uh oh, here we go"
I was SO relieved to see that it WAS NOT the reaction I expected.
Like Molly, my first reaction was bad, but yet I feel deep in my heart there is no way Bush would allow something to go through that he felt could in any way put this country in danger of terrorism.
SO, after hearing more, and reading more, I eventually came to the same conclusion as you Molly! But I have to admit, if I were in the Presidents shoes I might have taken an easier road and just agreed to not let the deal go through.
The bottom line is that this deal will not change the level of security on the ports, it will not change how those security people are hired or the background checks they go through to get their jobs.
It's a complicated issue, and on a simplistic level I want to say NO, there's NO reason anyone other than an American company should manage our ports. On a realistic level I can see there are dangers to holding that attitude and more importantly that we have not really given up any control whatsoever in allowing this deal to go through.
I heard on the radio this AM that the co. is talking about leaving out the American part of the deal, at least temporarily, due to the American's doubts. I feel that shows a lot of respect on their part!
__________________
Always smile ~ it makes everyone wonder what you're up to.
