Well considering that CNN says the Sept 11th terrorists where from Saudi Arabia, why not invade there? In a pure and utter conincidence, a few weeks ago the WSJ had an article about how Afghanistan is still the number 1 drug country in the world, still. And Iraq, Iran are in the top 10 oil producing countries in the world. What a concidence. I wonder who profits from this?
Germany, France and Russia were making out just fine in their oil and arms deals w/ Iraq, which is why they were against an invasion.
Quote from hapaboy: Okay, so there's a lot of controversy about the Dubai Ports deal, even among conservatives. Some answers below... Question: If Dubai Ports takes over management of the ports, who will be in charge of security? The Dubai company, the Coast Guard, who? Answer: The U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of security at every commercial port in the U.S. They can inspect warehouses, business offices, containers, ships -- everything. And, they can enforce the laws and arrest for violations of criminal or admiralty law. Question: Will the workers themselves change, i.e. the longshoremen who handle the containers. Answer: Nope. Longshoremen is a union, and they have contracts to do what they do, regardless of which company is technically in management authority over port operations. Question: If the answers to the above are that the Coast Guard or another federal agency is in charge of security, and the workers will continue to be the same American longshoremen, what is the danger with this deal? Answer:The danger is not that Dubai Ports would be in charge. The danger is that any foreign company whose board of directors and management may be more likely dominated by persons who are not U.S. Citizens, and who may have a greater allegiance to foreign powers or interests, creates a greater threat than would be present were the operating company primarily controlled by U.S. citizens (or another Western power with more substantial democratic heritage). Tommy Franks is in favor of this deal. He doesn't seem to me to be the type of guy who would endorse a deal that would compromise security at our ports. Answer: The contra argument is simply that DP is not a threat, because its controlling management is interested in U.S. security and the continued successful maintenance of the ports. But, to repeat, we are all being mislead, because the REAL threat is that any company that is controlled by management who are not U.S. citizens and residents may have undisclosed leanings to foreign powers. We are looking under the wrong rock. A corporation is just a legal entity. We need to be looking behind the face of the entity to those people who are in management control to determine the level of security provided. It's odd, frankly, that neither the administration nor any other Republican has tried to clarify this point. This makes me think that perhaps the people in management control actually may have presented a reasonable threat. But, I don't know, and I don't have time to call my Congresspersons and ask for answers.