[speekinout]

However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked.

There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution.

[Dane]

There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong. Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution

But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.

[villagerjoel]

So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?

[o_zarkman44]

Who says there aren't any American companies who can run the ports? Who's running them now??Did they ask anyone? Or was it a no bid transaction? There are too many questions and some pretty ugly revelations about the UAR and how they have supported terrorists in the past. We have to assume they continue to do so, no matter what a photo op shows.

Just because an obscure report from an obscure government spokesperson favors or supports something does not validate the truth.
Americans would not be prudent to place any trust in this transaction, no matter how or who guarantees it to be ok.

[Riverman94610]

"There aren't any American companies that can run these ports"
So who HAS been running the ports for the past umpteen years then?

[McGavin999]

and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.

I heard that if the UAE hadn't won bid on the British company, it would now be owned by the Chinese who would be running the ports.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution.

Worked for Eastern Airlines.

[lapsus calami]

 

Everybody's been so focused on the "6 US ports" thing that I believe that a big picture is being missed. I've been digging around on this and it looks that if the DP World buyout of P&O gets finalized, DP World gets P&O's 29 ports of operation - and that's nothing to sneeze at, at all. Sure, even if DP World were to get "run off" from our domestic 6 ports, there are still 23 other ports that are surely connected to US commerce interests, just the same.

 

I've been thinking that this media hubbub has been connected with strategies by other business interests (read: Chicoms). Though it may be a little late in the game at this point, have been theorizing that if they could garner enough pressure even up to the last minute at any and every level to somehow torpedo the deal between P&O and DP World, it could buy time for them to finally garner enough capitol cash to put in a bid that no one could ever match, thus setting the stage to (eventually) become the only mass shipping game in town on planet earth. That's a spooky thought. Though the P&O shareholders have already voted, there is still some sort of court approval pending, coming up shortly.

 

I'm not suggesting some sort of "conspiracy", am just saying not to underestimate the stubborn business acumen of the Chinese.