Do you think America should sell its ports to foreign interests?
95795
We don't run any of our eighty ports.  The sale is actually between Great Britian and the UAE.  \n\nI do have my concerns, but we aren't selling the ports
1074505
NO.\nToo many business interests across the board. Each state is dependant to some degree on another state.\nToo many people of every walk of life depends on the other to stay afloat.
229331
Theoretically yes but ...\n\nThere are many interests at work.\n1. Arm dealers: US is high tech and needs to keep ahead in research. New weapons are developed in an industry that manages huge amounts of money, so huge that they could actually finance wars so they can make weapons (allegations not proven, but I use the sentence to illustrate how much cash is involved and what power comes with that). Old weapons just need maintanance and cost but they are easilly transformed into a source of revenue by selling them to other countries. US junk is sold by weapon dealers to many countries, mainly african, etc, wherever there's a war zone. War is business and US is best at it (no 1 weapons exporter in any market: white,grey,black). Diplomacy doesn't pay, but must be kept as a facade in order to allow diplomats to be re-elected so they can continue war business. Companies like TI thrive on war, they got more contracts and sub-contracts from the govt in the last 3 years than in the previous 10 put together.\n2. Secret Services: Secret services have thrived too in war, they got more rights, more money, more finance for offshore operations.\n3. Politics: you've seen Bush talk, he can barely connect two sentences on his own and even when reading pre-written speaches he takes pauses, etc. He isn't a diplomat, he can't stand his own ground in diplomacy. He hasn't done a good job at keeping the country together. He doesn't have a valid economic plan to increase wealth and economic power, he scares the population with terrorist threats to justify military spendings, fears which keep getting him re-elected. He doesn't know to convince, only to threaten and needs to back his threats with something: a bigger army.\nWhere is this going to? Hard to tell. But with all these interests at work for making a profitable war-machine is hard to think that there will ever be a good US diplomacy. Look at Cheney, look at Bush, look at Rice ... they all keep saying the same thing: do it our way or be crushed. No attempt for empathy, no knowledge of history, no diplomatic skill (not even some subterfuge for God's sake, do your schemes and follow your interests but do it covertly dammit, Clinton wasn't much better but at least he tried and had some charm).\nDo you wonder why they prefer a warmachine to diplomacy ?
288217
I am not sure what it is you are asking but if you are asking that should the government go with the deal, I'd say sure. As long as Bush and his cronies benefit from the deal, who cares about anything else?\nIf you are asking WILL the government go for the deal, I think it will go through. Neither the government of UAE nor the company that will be put in charge of the project benefit from terrorist attack on the US ports. Global business is likes calm continuity to prosper. The money will not go far either. Thanks to multinational financial corporations and big business, money spent on security of US ports to a Dubai based company will be deposited in the Hong Kong branch of an English bank account backed by US government bonds.
1185330
Yes , I would have to say that I would definetly buy American. As you know the problem is that when you have your own small business finances are always to be watched. It costs alot more to make stuff in America by Americans than it does in any other third world country. Sad isn't it.
143295
Most US ports don't make a lot of money - or rather, they didn't many years ago.  The reason P&O first got into the business of managing ports around the world is simply...because they do a very good job of it.\nContrary to popular opinion, Dubai and the UAE are not supporters of terrorism.  On the contrary - they have proven to be some of the US' best allies in the region.  Not all Muslims think alike.\nIt is not a question of ownership of our ports; they are still owned in the US.  It is a question of management.  Cargo handling and port management were farmed out many years ago because there were companies that could do a better job at a lower price.  Do you, as a taxpayer, want to shell out millions of dollars to keep an unproductive port limping along in business - or get new management, and make the port productive and able to support itself?\nWhen was the last time you heard about a dockworkers' strike affecting our ports?  They were almost monthly occurrences in the '50s and '60s.  New management has reined in the excesses of the unions while improving throughput of cargo, thereby spreading prosperity for everyone concerned.
163344
Bigotry takes many forms and attempts to disguise itself behind issues that many people can support (i.e., law and order, national security, etc). The issue here has never been about national security. Many people would like us to think that this is the case but it isn't. The truth is that most people are bigoted when it comes to Arab companies owning companies that do business in the United States. Let's look at all of the issues here. First, national security is not threatened by the deal. The company would not control port security nor would it have access to any information that would allow it to bypass security measures which are in place that it couldn't already bypass without purchasing an interest in the port. Second, the company would do financial harm to itself and is very unlikely to risk a sizable investment in our ports to further some ideological agenda of others. Third, any ownership of an interests in ports could jeopardize our national security even if its an American company therefore it makes no sense to discriminate simply because the company is based out of the UAE.
80846
Cause poor people from states that vote for Republicans go to wal mart and buy stuff that is made in China.\n\nThats a smart @ss answer, but essentially,  up until about a month ago I was all oh my gosh China is the enemy.\n\nChina just wants to sell America goods cause it makes them money.\nThey have a problem in that their one child policy is going to cause a shift in population to where they have a lot of elderly.\n\nEssentially the same thing here, with the baby boomers about to suck off social security.\n\nChina has a big air force,  and they are the second largest nation that is a consumer of oil on the world market, but . .\nthe biggest buyer of Chinese goods on the world stage is the United States.\n\nSo you say what about that they own 350 billion of US debt?\n\nTo that I say, I voted for Kerry who would have raised taxes reducing our need to borrow from foreign entities.\n\nIn short, stop being an @ss yourself and playing the liberal bad conservative good game.\n\nIts politically fashionable to say o no the President is selling these ports to the arabs, have you jumped on that bandwagon too?\n\nI'm defending the President on this.  Its a private transaction to sell the management not the security of the port to a firm.\n\nKuwait and Dubai own stock in Chrysler, but no one freaks out over that ownership.
140610
give me a break.  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthere is actually no new deal being made.  The British comapany that already manages the ports is being bought out by a corporation owned primarily by citizens of the United Arab Emarites.  The question at hand is wether or not to try to get out of our contract.  Since the British company will still be managing our ports, there is no reason to suspect that a terrorist plot is going on.  Micheal Moore Edits Answers that he doesn't like from his films and usually slants what is included.  Maybe if you read somthing other than Liberal propaganda (including the textbooks found in public and some private schools) you would get the whole story.
529645
It's a wonderful spot.  Maybe we should leave map kiosks along the border showing the way to Toronto to pick up where Fox's map to the United States leaves off...\n\nBubblehead, Fox's not owning the U.S. sure doesn't stop HIM from selling it!
128699
Maybe.  I heard a comedian say this and thought it made some sense.  The U.S. should just buy Mexico.  Or at least turn it into a U.S. region like Guam or Puerto Rico.\n\nThis would eliminate all the financial based opposition most Americans feel.  America needs the tax revenue that is being lost by American employers paying illegals cash under the table.  Mexicans need American jobs to feed their families over the border.  American companies need the cheap labor in Mexico.\n\nOf course this will never happen because Mexicans have too much pride to sell out and America is too prejudiced to treat Mexicans as equal citizens.
856030
Seeing as how I agree with every point you've stated............\n\nI believe we should assist those countries that are willing to support our nation's goal of world stability.
756204
Excellent Question..\nExcellent comments..\nAll true ...\nAnd yes...Seymour will do anything for attention..\nIncluding selling our country down the river...
958705
I do not agree with it. I think that the President's friends have investments over there and they think that they should use the US army to defend their investments. (Oil)
661885
Diplomacy doesn't sell weapons.\n\nHis sponsors see no profit in it
200769
I don't believe that the USA has the right to involve in other countries politics. It might be done because it is helpfull for the country (oil in iraq?). But I believe that bigger organisation should do it if we're talking about a dictatorship or corruption.
717606
No, America should annex Mexico. This could solve a lot of problems.