Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Ubertuber, I agree that there is an undercurrent of "racism" in these statements but I think it is tuly the optics of the whole thing. Given the fact that the ports are seen to be one of soft underbellies of America, where they are most vulnerable to attack, it just seems odd that the management of these ports should be held by *any* foreign national (British or otherwise).
In the end though, I suspect it matters very little who owns the corporation that runs the ports.
|
Uber also gave the best reason FOR this decision, to forge stronger ties with an Arab nation. Which is hard to argue against.
As far as the shadowy racism implied in this uproar is concerned, I didn't know a British company managed the ports until I started researching the UAE takeover. I don't find it anymore comforting than if the UAE takes them over. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that I think that government management of the ports by say, TSA, would lessen the chance of a bribe convincing a person in high places to look the other way.
Is it completely rational? No. </rumsfeld> It's fairly common knowledge that Homeland Security has basically turned a blind eye to port operations. But after 9/11, I think we're allowed at a juncture lilke this, where we're really becoming educated on how our ports are operated, to seriously scrutinize what's going on, and if need be, take over operations.