Should Bu$h's wealthy Arab friends own our Major ports?
115784
No, they shouldn't.  Howver, as I live here in New Orleans, maybe I should start learning Arabic.
143295
Most US ports don't make a lot of money - or rather, they didn't many years ago.  The reason P&O first got into the business of managing ports around the world is simply...because they do a very good job of it.\nContrary to popular opinion, Dubai and the UAE are not supporters of terrorism.  On the contrary - they have proven to be some of the US' best allies in the region.  Not all Muslims think alike.\nIt is not a question of ownership of our ports; they are still owned in the US.  It is a question of management.  Cargo handling and port management were farmed out many years ago because there were companies that could do a better job at a lower price.  Do you, as a taxpayer, want to shell out millions of dollars to keep an unproductive port limping along in business - or get new management, and make the port productive and able to support itself?\nWhen was the last time you heard about a dockworkers' strike affecting our ports?  They were almost monthly occurrences in the '50s and '60s.  New management has reined in the excesses of the unions while improving throughput of cargo, thereby spreading prosperity for everyone concerned.
957079
Yes I definitely think they need to be bought in the US from a government contractor.  Boy, this globalism is really getting out of hand, on security issues.  First the ports, then this.\n\nBy the way, I had been planning on voting early by machine.  I guess I'd better look into the software first...
713484
That would depend on their actions.  I know several people of Middle Eastern descent and I trust them.
288217
I am not sure what it is you are asking but if you are asking that should the government go with the deal, I'd say sure. As long as Bush and his cronies benefit from the deal, who cares about anything else?\nIf you are asking WILL the government go for the deal, I think it will go through. Neither the government of UAE nor the company that will be put in charge of the project benefit from terrorist attack on the US ports. Global business is likes calm continuity to prosper. The money will not go far either. Thanks to multinational financial corporations and big business, money spent on security of US ports to a Dubai based company will be deposited in the Hong Kong branch of an English bank account backed by US government bonds.
95795
We don't run any of our eighty ports.  The sale is actually between Great Britian and the UAE.  \n\nI do have my concerns, but we aren't selling the ports
237478
all i can say is watch our backs... try to be friends with them, but don't get to cozy.. their political system is no way like ours... just like in most Arab countries, who ever is in charge of the country has the last say......
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.
637996
Bill Gates used to be but with oil prices lately it is probably some sultan in the Middle East (or the CEO of some petroleum corporation-lol).
238545
of course they should,but they won't,\nas long as (papa america )is the only big power in world.\nwhy should they,even if all the members of the U.N said they should,the usa will vito against it:)              (haha,,, usa democracy)\nand people r wondering why arabs and muslim don't like usa?\nby the way most of the answers u got r unlogic at all,exept the one from (enlight1),though i dont agree with him,cause if we say that it means that nobody will ever be responsible for his action as long as he is powerfull,thats the law of jungles.\nand someone said that Syria gave up palestine???since when was palestine belonge to syria???\nand other said that arabs expeld jews from there countries,then said that 8000 jews r STILL living in arab countries till now??!!!!!what a logical statement:)lol
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!
1097103
You do have a point, but we are not there for the reasons you discuss. We are there so that the buddies of Bush can make $, yes Haliburton with their ridiculous contracts, but also the big oil companies wanting to make good on their investments in the Caspian Sea area. Afterall, if you had untold billions invested, wouldn't you want to make good on it? Besides the military presence there helps protect those investments.
479325
Yes, they should "give us their land and became a stae" and then we can export them all as felons and enjoy a little more coastline.  On the other hand...
103350
Update: \n"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."\n\n\nFirst of all, I just want to say that it's obvious not "all Arabs are terrorists" and objection to this port deal is not suggesting in the least bit that they are.  You see a lot of the educated Congressmen, of both parties, objecting to the sale of these ports to a UAE company.  These are intelligent, educated people and you think that they are objecting to this deal because they believe that all Arabs are terrorists?  I think not.  The first perons who answered this question is the one who needs to get educated.\n\nIt is justifiable to say that giving control of these major US ports to a company in the UAE poses a threat to national security.  This situation is comparable to the notion of "probable cause."  If a police officer sees a person driving dangerously and erratically he has reason to believe that this person might be intoxicated.  If two of the September 11 hijackers came from the UAE and money used to fund those attacks went through UAE banks, we have reason to believe that giving control of major ports to a UAE company is an added threat to security.\n\nThere is no argument against the fact the UAE is located in a region of the world where anti-Western sentiment is strong.  UAE control of these ports gives people a greater opportunity to act of these feelings.\n\nSorry to say, but there is a difference between a British company operating these ports and a UAE company operating these ports.  I am a strong supporter of President Bush on 95% of the issues, but I do not know where his head is regarding this issue, if he really did know about this before the deal was made.
873936
You are correct. Instead of a foolish Middle East Adventure, we could have invested money to secure our ports and make sure that containers are properly searched, we could be investing in enough baggage screening machines to do the job at every major international airport in the country, we could have already built the wall between the US and Mexico, and we could install the new "sniffer" capable stoplights available from such companies as Optisoft.\n\nBut no...instead our government wants to spread freedom to people who singularly don't deserve it.\n\nSomeday our Administration will remember they represent the American people.
137126
Protection of our domestic borders are probably the weakest link in our current defenses against terrorism. I can't agree to turn over management of our largest ports to a country from whom terrorists and terrorist funding has come.\nNo matter how confident you are of those whom are in charge, everyone has their price and thus are prone to corruption. I simply would feel more confident if those in charge were not from the United Arab Emirate...that's all!~
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.