"What could possibly go wrong? Cleopatra and Egypt are our allies who continue to send us large shipments of grain. The fact that they have helped and financed terrorists such as Marcus Antonius should not be a factor in our decision making," future Emperor Octavius was quoted as saying.
I have not spoken on the planned turn over of 6 ports in America to the UAE government owned Dubai World Ports (DP World). My take on it is that it's a bad idea. Not only should all of our major national borders and other points of entry be run by US based interests in the case of war, but also in the case of smuggling and potential general corruption of giving the country who is in control the decision in who gets preferential treatment in terms of the ports.
The UAE also doesn't recognize Israel as a country or that it should exist. I'm not a warmongering Israel supporter and you'll find no Israeli flags flying on this site. I have nothing against Israel either. I have supported their right in the past to build their border fence to stop terrorism, illegal immigration and defend themselves as I support America's right in this as well.
This group is owned by a foreign government and no foreign government should ever have the right to control a point of entry into the united states, whether it be Mexico, UAE or Britain. I don't care how good of allies we are with any country this is our national security we are dealing with and points of entry should be controlled by US based interests only, not foreign powers. The world changes too quickly to have to worry about issues such as a foreign government having control over the shipping of US military supplies.
The Ancient Rome-Ancient Egypt comparison is valid in many respects to this situation. When Marc Antony did decide to attack Octavius at Actium there could have been a very different outcome if a Cleopatra owned "company" had been in control of Roman ports for years. Grain and supply shipments from not only Egypt, but other countries, could have been delayed or stopped. Even Rome seizing the ports when the events occurred would have been too late to organize a swift and smooth handover of operations when supplies were most needed.
This plan is a very bad one and sometimes you have to look back in history and place the same decisions on known countries and conditions of the past to view how things could result from those decisions.
This is probably the last I will say on the issue, but there are many others commenting on this. Including Michelle Malkin on the financing of the deal.
Backcountry Conservative on Bush threatening to Veto any action by Congress.
Ace of Spades
Debbie Schlussel points out that HAMAS and Hezbollah think it's a splendid idea.
The Moderate Voice
And of course you have people who just trust Bush on everything. From his amnesty guest worker program and stance on the southern border to this deal on the port issue, like RightWingSparkle. Do these people disagree with anything Bush does? Why don't they just let Bush write their blogs?
Six Meat Buffet has a poll on what Bush should do next to leave us open to attack.