I will chalenge you to do some research about the company, their roles and responsibilities, hiring practices, etc. and then point out where security might be breached.

From the comment you just made, it sounds like you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I don’t see your “other than the profit motive to incent them” arguement?

In the absract all companies are equally motivated by profit. In so far as that is true the nationality of the company makes no difference. But we are not talking about the profit issue but the security issue.

Companies are composed of people. It is a fact, Steve, one borne out by the nature of people themselves and well known in the security business, that a persons background can have an influence on his loyalties. Since ports are such a soft target we need all the advantage we can get in protecting them. We do not need to make it any harder on our security people by having companies in charge of the ports where the concern is that terrorists could easily infiltrate. Take that risk off the table, or drastically reduce it, by having American firms, owned and run by Americans in charge of the ports.

I don't see your "other than the profit motive to incent them" arguement? Firms that we are talking about are global in nature and I contend that they notion of profit is pretty much the only motivating factor even for an American company. Especially since security isn't the companies concern they will likely do nothing about it since it would adversely affect profits.

Your case relies, quite literally, on your feelings and nothing more.

As for the U.A.E., while it isn't a duplicate of the U.S. or even European countries in the Middle East based on all that I've read it is probably one of the most liberal muslim countries and they appear to be moving more and more in that direction. This is something we want to encourage, not discourage.

Our resident leftie is merely bleating back the propaganda he has ingested on his way to the discussion. As a nation we are just as philosophically opposed to Red China as to the Dubai government.

I look on the attack by the MSM and the Democrats as another attempt to discredit the President and his adminstration. With a glaring lack of
any substantive platform, plans or organized thought processes the alternative for the Democrat Party is to attack and attack ad nauseum.

Kin could never be a "brainwashed" idiot.

He first would have to have a brain and that is not a paty of Kens anatomy.

The fact that he is an idiot speaks to that fact.

1.) No one group is MORE racist than Democrats.

2.) Leave it up to the MSM to 'investigate' a story, and miss every single pertinent question, to make room for needless reactionary emotional nonsense.

3.) Our government (under ANY administration) cannot protect us, and has repeatedly proven the point. You better find a good place to live, with all the provisions necessary to support your own family.

4.) Americans love to bitch about "outsourcing" and foregin trade, but are too lazy to be competitive, and too cheap to stop buying foreign crap at Wal-Mart.

5.) Ken is a brainwashed idiot.

There it is.

1. Why now?
2. Why will these changes you advocate make things safer?

1) As I've said before, it is never too late to do the right thing.

2) Yes. With American companies running the ports, which we all agree are soft targets for terrorism, they have something else besides the profit motive to incent them. They also have a personal vested interest in the security issue.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much imagination to see that a foreign firm, especially one owned by a state that we are philosophically opposed to, would be more easily infiltrated by terrorists wishing to do us great harm.

In other words on country we invade, another country we give port deals.

Technically true, but more than a tad simplistic to the point of almost being misleading.

Even if what you say is true, this still leaves unanswered the following questions:

1. Why now?
2. Why will these changes you advocate make things safer?

The first one undercuts your general position and the second is one you and everybody else on your side has left unanswered. Why will having Halliburton vs. Dubai Ports Worldwide or whatever run the loading and unloading of containers in the port with the exact same employees, the exact same security be any different?

I have no idea what this means.

I think there is an element of racism/jingoism here.

Anyway, if you don’t like my guess as to why it has become a huge issue, what do you think the reason is? Why are people on both the right and left talking about it?

You misunderstand, I think you are right. People are upset about this because it struck an emotional nerve and thus an emotional response vs. a reasoned and rational response. I have yet to see any evidence of how security would be improved having an American company doing these things.

Now I'm not saying this to suggest that this deal should not go though, I'm saying it to highlight just how weak the ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were that propelled un into war.

In other words on country we invade, another country we give port deals.

It just like the idea of sanctions, the only country on the planet where conservatives thinks sanctions do any good is apparently Cuba where they have been in place for most of my lifetime. But I guess we just need to give them more time right?

Translation: brown people like other brown people that are scary.

I have no idea what this means.

Anyway, if you don't like my guess as to why it has become a huge issue, what do you think the reason is? Why are people on both the right and left talking about it?

1) Ports are very soft targets for terrorists attacks.

2) We need all the advantage we can get in protecting our ports

3) An American company will be more 'vested' in the security issue than will be any foriegn company.

4) This is not an economic issue, nor is it directed at any of our friends and allies. It is a security issue. A real ally will understand our concern for security and not get all huffy if we prohibit foriegn ownership of certain items of infrastructure.

5) After an attack takes place it is too late to make amends to the dead and to their families.