Should the Arabs beable to patrol our ports is the new topic on tv?  What do you think about this subject?
108630
Well, it's not like evrey single guard is going to be an arab.  There will still have to be American citizens.  It's just that the company that will oversee those guards will be owned by the Saudi government.  Just the same, I'm against it, too.  I'd be just as much against it if I had known that the company was previously owned by a British company.  Yes, they are both our allies.  So what.  They're not US.  Not only should Americans be the guards, the company in charge should be American as well.
143815
Well, we're not handing the ports over to Dubai. What's happening is that the British company that manages the ports is being purchased by a company based in Dubai. So it's very likely that in terms of people "on the ground", i.e. the ones in the port itself, there would be very little change. Basically all that will change is the profits from the port are going to another set of CEOs.\n\nFurthermore, there would be no change in the safety procedures at the port. The procedures are federally mandated, and enforced by the US Coast Guard, so it's not as if the new company could change them, even if they wanted to. \n\nSpeaking of which, it's not clear why people are automatically assuming that this company is somehow connected to terrorism itself. The only reason given is that the company is based in Dubai. What this reason really means is that people are afraid of having an Arab company run the ports, since "Arabs are terrorists" or some similar racist dreck.\n\nBut the company that in question, Dubai Ports World, has never had a security problem before. In an article on CNN.com (see below), an expert on maritime security named Kim Peterson called DPW's security record "exemplary".\n\nSo the sale shouldn't be a problem, although the Bush Administration is arguably making a mistake in this situation. \n\nTheir mistake is not the sale of ports, or more accurately the sale of the port management company, but rather that instead of explaining to people why they're doing what they're doing, the Administration is simply saying that we should trust them and not offering any reason to do so. That arrogance has, for obvious reasons, raised hackles on both sides of the aisle.\n\nIn sum: the sale won't effect security at all, and the only problem is politics.
909482
The US has no opinions on Arab v Arab conflicts.\n\nThat was roughly what she told Saddam giving him the greenlight to invade Kuwait.
910466
Have you heard of Iraq?\n\nWesterners are still trying to enforce their will on Arabs.\n\nLittle has changed.\n\nlove and blessings Don
173199
I think George W Bush is possibly the worst president ever, but in this case I tend to agree with you.  There is no reliable way to say it is ok for some countries to manage ports, but for others it isn't.  It does seem to be a case of a phobia of arab nations and a quick way for both sides of the aisle to disingenuously try and gain political points for doing what they paint as the "pro-American anti-terrorism" move in blocking it.
110062
This would be my chance  to give the  world a serialised  story  of the  true state of affairs in Africa , issues   on governonce , cultures  and  the people .\n\nReasons  being that in most cases  i  have  watched with  great disbelief  the amount of untruth printed  and  televised  in the mainstream media giving  the outside  world  a  very  dark picture of  actually is the true  status in  Africa.\n\nIf  only  i could get such a  chance .
1055927
*sigh* Ok two things......\n\nWe wonder why middle Easterners don't have an accurate impression of Americans, and then we do this? Hmmmmm. Maybe they DO have an accurate impression afterall. \n\nSecondly, at least when we build something mammoth locally, it is put up for referendum. Did our lovely Senate give the go ahead for this?? \n\nAll of a sudden I feel I lost my voice. \n\n(p.s. I had no idea you were a teacher! Dang....do your students roll their eyes at your puns as much as mine do? haha)
95969
You must be referring to the recent deal with Dubai Ports World, a firm owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.  This is not a company owned by the Saudis. The issue is question is one of port management, not a complete sale.  I expect that many people will give a knee-jerk reaction.  Often our responses cause the exact opposite reaction that we hope for.  I believe that we need to take an open minded review of this process before we give the thumbs up or thumbs down.  If the issue is the security of our nation let’s not boil the response down to a “heck no” without some real review.\n\nUnfortunately during this time there is anti-Arab sentiment with many people in the US.  If we want to see a more secular, pro-western population in the Middle East we are going to have to engage in business enterprises with companies based in those countries.  If we boycott the legitimate businesses over there they will fail which will further isolate the populations of these countries.  Freedom generally comes much faster with open markets.  \n\nI personally think that security in post 9-11 America is not much better that pre 9-11 America.  The fact that this entire deal slipped past the current administration shows that we have a lot of work to do here in America.  I am not in favor of the proposed deal in its current form.  Since the executive branch was asleep on this one I would like to here more from Congress on the issue.
271834
Yup. Go after 'em and put 'em on the defensive. We are making alot of progress against the terrorists, but you wouldn't know it by watching CBS or CNN. Nevermind what the news says, ask the people who have been there and have had their mission completely misrepresented by the liberal press and liberal politicians. Our troops are kickin' butt! When was the last hit against us? I say keep 'em busy over there!
962363
I can't believe you have already ignored the most recent past. The criminals were those Arabs who attacked the USA on 9-11 in New York and Washington. They are the ones who "interfered" with our way of life.\n\nAll we're doing is attempting to bring those who attacked us to justice. Why don't you admit that the USA has the right to protect itself against those who attacked us?\n\nTX Guy
274819
I haven't heard, but my own opinion is they did. All those times the inspectors were going in the front and tractor trailers were going out the back of the WMD sites. They were going somewhere. There are reams and reams of captured documents that are still being sifted through, and if there are indications that Syria got weapons, that info may not be released - it might be better to approach them through diplomatic channels. Show them documents, satellite photo's, etc. Making public accusations will put them on the defensive and they would feel they have to save face on the world stage and with the other arab countries by standing up to the US. If we could convince them diplomatically to get rid of them (they don't want to fight the US) it would be a win win situation. The President doesn't care about the polls, just getting the job done, and if he can do it like this and without all the hoopla he will.
889552
The whole situation in the middle east is so complicated. I do not even know where to start. The worst thing they could do was to try and start a war with Israel. Not very smart. Hopefully they can rebuild their country and try to live a peaceful life. I hope they do along with everyone else in the middle east.
85754
The UAE is not really an Arab country in the way most Americans think of Arab States. Many American Citizens live there. Now the timing is bad just because we are so scared that even countries that are allies are hurt. It is a shame.\n\nPeople from the USA will still be running our ports. The workers are all from the USA. The reason we are scared is because the word Arab is in the name of the country. They are an economic powerhouse. They have _no oil_. They gained power through the free market like the USA.\n\n*The UAE is what we want Iraq to be.*\n\nIt should be investigated as the climate we are in calls for that. The congress should have been clued into this before. The secretive nature of this Bush administration is very worrysome. There is no reason to deny them other than their location in the world. It makes me wonder if something else is going on. He claims he had not known untill it was to late. How could he not know! I do not accept this. It makes me very nervous.\n\nThe investigation must be done, but a decision must be made fairly speedily or countries around the UAE will use it against the USA to turn more people in that region away from us.\n\nUPDATE:\nWow, I just heard the senate hearing on this. Appearantly, Bush was giving Dubai some breaks with this deal. He did not require them to make copies of business files in the USA, where they would be subjected to court orders from us. Also he did not designate a US citizen to make sure they were in compliance with US terms. This is so shady!
1167952
I'd assume in order to sue them you'd have to prove they actually have put your family at risk.  If that's the case you could sue the VA for losing those veterns files even though they were returned.  It seems the goverment is the one who should be addressing what they've implied is a threat to "national security".  It's yet to be proven this was actually a threat aprart from the comments from a few goverment officials.  If you recall they made the same accusation with the first leak and did nothing.  So if it's true that the New York Times has repeatedly put us at risk prove it and do something about it.  It seems like more of that double speak regarding the "war on terror".  We are at war, we need special tools not provided by the current laws but it's a good idea to turn port management over to the UAE.  The New York Times has threatened our national security more then once and the Adminstration has yet to censure them with even a suspension of press credentials ?  I have to wonder if they believe it themselves and if it's not more dodge and weave.  Not to mention if the legality of the program could be challenged you can't classify an illegal program legally ?  It's a good question I wonder that myself.  I've added a link with some other headlines the times have run that really are more damming then this one it is a bit satrical.
737725
Should have happened a long time ago.  Of course we can't win a military victory in Iraq.  It is JUST LIKE VIET NAM.  How soon we forget the lessons of history.\n\nSaudi Arabia should take the lead on policing Iraq, if it needs policing.  They have all kinds of oil money to spend.  Why in the world are we spending billions in Iraq, when we have already sent billions to the region buying their oil?\n\nLet's allow the region to govern and police itself.  If Saudi Arabia really felt threatened, don't you think they could buy enough weapons to defend themselves?  I haven't heard them say they were afraid of any of their neighbors, including Iran.  And Russia says absolutely nothing about these countries on their western border.  Why?\n\nWe should have been long gone.
105011
DO YOU know that AL Queda is killing innocent people everywhere from NYC to the Philipeans to Sri Lanka to Saudi Arabia to Iraq?\n\nOur troops go out of their way to avoid killing innocent Iraqis.  Al Qedia doesn't care.
146272
I'm very comfortable with it. Nothing is going to change, except a DIFFERENT foreign country will be handling the day-to-day COMMERCIAL operation of the ports. It is currently being handles by a British company. SECURITY in the ports will still be handled by the Dept. of Homeland Security (US Coast Guard and Border Patrol).\n\nWhy is everyone being so racist over this topic. It is OK for white Europeans to run the ports, but everyone seems to act like all Middle Easterners are terrorists. Does anyone remember Timothy McVeigh? He was a white American terrorist. Therefore, by the way of thinking everyone has, all white Americans must be terrorists.