After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

FR Poll ^

[Rte66]

Ditto. I was opposed on general PR principles--it looks bad--but in my heart, I supported it.

I know well how these types of contracts work and I don't see any inherent risks in having the UAE as the owner of the company on these few specialized locations within the ports named.

If there had been any more appropriate companies to consider, I would've recommended their possible selection, after study.

What bothered me was that the story on DPW kept changing from the first reporting. At first, it was said that they only owned 5-6% of the company that was buying out the British company. No biggie.

Next, I read that it was the govt of the UAE that "only owned" 5-6% of the buyer company, DPW. After that, it came out that it was a joint venture between DPW and Maersk, 50/50. Then, I read that the operating portion of the company was mostly British and American and Norse, I believe--not even any UAE citizens on the board.

Then I heard on MSM that the company is 100% owned by the UAE. However, the same sources were still saying this contract was for all the operations of the ports themselves, lol!

Now, I don't know what to believe about the company, but I am comfortable with the small amount of actual shipping or stevedoring operations within each small portion of each port that DPW will be handling.

So, I've gone from blind opposition to blind support to questioning to supporting.

Heh, but I voted "undecided." *oh, well*

[abigailsmybaby]

I'm trying to find out. Am awaiting answers to my questions.

[juzcuz]

Actually no U.S. company bid on the contract...
-----

That is really shocking... No US company bid on US Ports business. Not even Halliburton/Bechtel/Chaney the biggest contractor for all the FEMA relief? Amazing...

[CWOJackson]

I know I was hoping Walmart would put out a press release saying they were expanding into commercial port facilities. Think of how quick the unions would have been pawing Schumer demanding he seal the deal with DP World today.

[juzcuz]

I know I was hoping Walmart ...
----
Sam Wal ownership might would be more US investive than the UAE.

[TigersEye]

It seems to be the overriding motive for all Dem actions on on all issues. I don't know what else might be motivating Chucky on this but it could still be a pandering to the unions. There is a question of what he owes Hillary or what she has on him. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find dirt on him if you have raw FBI files in hand.

From a broader perspective I think all of the Dems have come to the conclusion that everything they hope to achieve hangs on an anti-Bush/anti-war stance. From my POV that's a heartwarming thought. Ultimately I think both aspects of that strategy will help them a little and hurt them a lot.

[antaresequity]

Think of how quick the unions would have been pawing Schumer demanding he seal the deal with DP World today.

LOL...expedient politics is amoral...and nebulous by that virtue

Soup of the Day!...Get It While Its Hot!

[higgmeister]

That is the issue in a nutshell. It is as if the lowest outlaw in the west has stepped into the saloon. He wants to play poker and he has two saddlebags packed so full of money he can't close them. Do you play cards with him, or tell him that we don't allow his kind in here?

In all fairness I believe you stopped your analogy to early.

You should add that he may also be able to help you find out
who murdered your family and has offered to let you use his horse,
his sixgun and his homestead while you search for them. All this
while knowing that you really own the town and could blow him
away without taking a breath if you even think you see him dealing
from the bottom of the deck.

[SouthTexas]

Support.

[cva66snipe]

If this was February 2002, instead of February 2006, this deal would not have been approved. Period. And since little has changed since February 2002, this deal should be DOA!

If this was anyone but a GOP POTUS supporting this likely no one in here would be supporting it. They would be too busy writting letters and setting up protest. China FNTS was wrong till Bush got in. So were many more bad ideas. People need to look at what they ONCE stood for & opposed under Clinton. If they support such policies now they then opposed just because the GOP says to do so then they are indeed just like the Dems they curse and no better. Some do not realize political party does not make everything right or everything wrong. Some good Republicans brought up very real concerns on this.

Making this a DEM VS GOP issue is nothing more than a cheap political trick that Both Parties are playing.

[Tribune7]

Support

[Tribune7]

LOL. I almost changed my position when I found Carter was for it. Seriously. Tommy Franks brought me back.

[Reagan Man]

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Inkie]

Support

[CWOJackson]

God Bless General Tommy Franks and people like him.

[Soul Seeker]

We've taken two polls.

The first poll demonstrates FACTUALLY your contention that, because we have a GOP President, folks will support anything is absolutely false.

Should a state-owned Arab company be allowed to manage six major United States seaports?

No 52.7% 2,173
Yes 33.2% 1,369
Undecided 14.0% 578
99.9% 4,120

Member Opinion
No 50.2% 1,077
Yes 33.9% 728
Undecided 15.9% 340
100.0% 2,145

Non-Member Opinion
No 55.5% 1,096
Yes 32.5% 641
Undecided 12.1% 238
100.1% 1,975

The second poll is currently still being conducted but here are the results as of this moment after a few days of debate and fact finding.

After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

Support 52.5% 759
Oppose 36.1% 521
Undecided 11.4% 165
100.0% 1,445

Member Opinion
Support 54.0% 487
Oppose 33.6% 303
Undecided 12.4% 112
100.0% 902

Non-Member Opinion
Support 50.1% 272
Oppose 40.1% 218
Undecided 9.8% 53
100.0% 543

Consider your theory nuked.

People had no problem opposing this President because he was a Republican, and the results have not reversed themselves because he's a Republican. people have stated their reasons as to why they've changed their minds in this very thread. You may disagree with them, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone citing he is a Republican as their reasoning. These two polls would prove their honesty on the matter. Accept their right to disagree with you on merit, instead of condemning them of less than stellar motives without basis.

[Tribune7]

Dittos!!

[Sweetjustusnow]

"Nothing changes basically."

Sure, we've sold off so much of the USA to hostile countries, why stop now?

[cva66snipe]

People had no problem opposing this President because he was a Republican, and the results have not reversed themselves because he's a Republican. people have stated their reasons as to why they've changed their minds in this very thread. You may disagree with them, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone citing he is a Republican as their reasoning. These two polls would prove their honesty on the matter. Accept their right to disagree with you on merit, instead of condemning them of less than stellar motives without basis.

Yes and many are posting they changed their mind because of party talking heads. I have made one comment several times in this forum that should cause alarm and not one person has challenged it. Actually I found out the info from someone trying to justify UAE's presence here. Why are we mooring our aircraft carriers in that nations ports pier side. Why are they working on our Naval ships?

It is insane to have obvious U.S. citizens jumping through hoops, subjecting them selves to nearly strip searches for such things as a plane ride or a Mass Transit ride in the name of Homeland Security. Yet a nation who until very recently supported history wise supported bin Ladden can come over hear like nothing ever happened 4 and a half years ago? We keep many paroled felons in this nation under closer scrutiny. If I had it on my record that I had supported terrorist groups in my past my future would be ruined if I ever tried to so much as buy a firearm. That is my point. Oh Rush says it's A OK Oh gee a man who's show by his own words is for entertainment purposes is a political guide?

Frankly I don't care what talking heads say I'm going on common sense to base what I think about it. We had a United States Navy Ship attacked in that region. Did they just get a lucky hit or did they know where to hit to inflict the most damage? If so where did they learn?

I've hear that NNSBDD owns part of that shipyard. No actually they do not they sold it back to UAE. You see I don't separate them one from the other. UAE is far too involved in our national defenses and national assets.

[Soul Seeker]

And many of them were in opposition because talking heads were in opposition. Your point is negated. It only proves too many people base their opinion on the word of whomever gets to them first.

Actually I found out the info from someone trying to justify UAE's presence here. Why are we mooring our aircraft carriers in that nations ports pier side. Why are they working on our Naval ships?

Ask one of the many people on this board that have worked alongside of them.

Frankly I don't care what talking heads say I'm going on common sense to base what I think about it. We had a United States Navy Ship attacked in that region. Did they just get a lucky hit or did they know where to hit to inflict the most damage? If so where did they learn?

That is not common sense. You lack answers so you conduct a scenario that makes sense to you to fill in the blanks. My advice? Weigh the known facts. Leave the blanks-blank. Then determine which position has more holes. If you believe that position leads you to oppose the deal, do so. Trying to fill in the blanks with conjecture, sorry, cannot support you in that choice.