[MikefromOhio]

because there wasn't one INTERESTED?

The government should FORCE a company into a deal?

Since when is THAT a conservative ideal?

Look around, there was no American company interested in the deal.

[LibertarianInExile]

Question, Mr. "InIraq," when did "conservatives" decide to put a price tag on national security? Why "force" an American company to be interested when we could simply raise the bar for admission to bid by increasing the amount we're willing to pay for port operations in order to secure those ports by not hiring cut-rate-security-risks like DPWorld?

You question my conservatism, but the fact is you're saying that as long as the price is low enough, you're fine with Islamists running the ports. I wonder if we could get Al Qaeda to guard our nukes for fifty cents, and if that would be okay with you, too?

[NJ_gent]

"Look around, there was no American company interested in the deal."

We couldn't find a single other company that was capable of handling the job and not located in a country full of terrorist sympathizers and run by a government that doesn't believe Israel should exist, but that the Taliban should? I'll take three bums from New Zealand to run our ports before handing them over to terrorist-supporting governments.

[kittymyrib]

That's the point...if the deal was so lousy that there were no US takers, why did the Arabs snap it up? They must want it for some other reason, and we can make some pretty good guesses what that might be.

[vernvet]

There would have been hell to pay if the port contract was awarded to Halliburton.

However no foreign company or country should even be allowed to rent an office in one of our ports. This includes England. These ports are high security zones.