Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

Most of your ports are already controlled by foreign companies, British companies control many, while the singaporean govt own a company that controls about 4 or 5 ports on the west coast.Security will still be the remit of the coastguard and the homeland security dept. Any company, even a US one could be infiltrated.The way I see it, if this is defeated, i.e. this company is refused the contract purely because it is a mid-east company (and lets face it, that is the only reason) the gulf between the US and the mid east will widen, and resentment will grow further.
I'm not saying you should give them the contract to ease relations, but rather, the fact that they are a mid east company should merely ensure that security checks are tough and complete.I feel myself agreeing with bush on this one... I think I'm gonna lie down..

I'm a little surprised at your stance here Holmes,I'm not sure on what basis you consider the UAE a threat, simply because two of the 9/11 bombers were citizens? in that case stop all business with Irish companies too, because some of our citizens were terrorists.Is it because the former government has tenuos links to terrorists? in that case stop all business with the UK, French, and indeed your own government.

I can see your points, but at the moment I'd agree with Jazzns that it is a bit of a knee jerk reactionWhether the companies are government owned or privately owned in that country make little difference, if anything I'd venture that a government owned company would be more accountable.
If you have someone trying to infiltrate your ports, they'll do it whether it be government owned, privately owned, US run or Al qaeda run. The UK goverment Fuels, through its arms trade, many of the civil wars/conflicts around the world. they are not squeaky clean. right.... so why the objection? I would assume that if they are employing in your country they would have to abide by labour laws in your country.

if true that is very disturbing indeed.

fair enough.. that was just an "I suppose" on my part.Seems to me though, and I stress "seems to me" that a government would be more accountable through things like trade agreements, the U.N. etc. than say two private companies battling it out without as much attention at government level.But I am no expert and do not claim to be. How so? do you mean specifically for a theocratic nation or just any nationalised company? equally as likely and quite common in U.S. companies. a "glass ceiling" is not the exclusive trademark of a theocratic state owned company.