why is the united arab emirates taking over managment of us shipping ports for?
101067
They are not. UAE is not taking over port management.  Dubai Ports World a company based out of UAE is taking over ports management. P&O based out of Britain(Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation) was managing the ports. P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World.
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.
280990
To us it's about US interests. (oil) To them it's a religous fight for freedom. Going by the last crusade, this might take a while.
170539
The sale is to the Country of Dubai, not the above. It could effect the American public's safety. Especially in the Port of Houston,Texas USA. The water way is over 18 miles long. Terrorism is not over, it's just on break until the next incident. Wishing will not make evil go away.
686072
Thats because the USA is one of the highest consumers of Oil in the world.Also the USA hardly has any Oil resources.That leaves it with no choice but to import oil which makes it dependent on foreign oil.
1003888
Bush supported a plan to allow a company in Dubai (not the UAE government) to provide security services for ports.  He did not try to "sell the ports."  As to why, it's probably lobbyists.  You will find that shipping companies are multi-national entities, with companies from all over the world handling the work.  For example, the port at Long Beach is run by the Hanjin corporation, which is Korean.\n\nAt some point, the world is going to have to do business with Middle Eastern companies, and maybe someone thought this was a good way to go.  However, the security of a port should be undertaken by local government, not by a commercial entity.  To bad local governments may not have the money to do so.
126305
Well, first off, the company is owned by the UAE government, which, while I wouldn't exactly say is a close friend of the U.S., is an ally.  Second, all the company is doing is taking over managing the ports -ownership will still belong to the various port authorities in each city.  The managing of the port will not involve controlling security -again, that responsibility belongs to the port authorities, to the Coast Guard, and to U.S. Customs & Border Protection.\n\nIt should also be noted that the government has been aware of a possible takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World since last fall.  The only real reason a stink was suddenly raised was after some union members complained to the mayor of Miami.  The White House has said extra security precautions were taken in vetting this deal, but it was still approved.  Some maritime security experts also agree, since DPW will not have any control over security procedures.  What it's really about is politics & shoring up union support for the Democrats (plus to look like they're actually beating the GOP on national security for once), while for some Republicans, it's about either supporting their constituents, or attempting to "claim their independence" from Bush, whatever that means.\n\nFinally, after having perused the Gulf News (a major English-language daily in Dubai), I get the impression that they generally associate this sort of complaint with the GOP or "American rightists", but they are especially angry at the New York Times, since they generally see the Times as a paper which tries to counter cultural hatred or whatever.\n\nSo, it's not really a "takeover", since the ports will still be under U.S. ownership -rather, it's who they hire to handle the day-to-day operations.  The longshoremen's unions are freaked out because they don't want to lose any jobs -something that I doubt would happen, but union guys are particularly paranoid about that in my experience, to the point where they make it more inefficient to get work done.  But, I think were we to stop this deal simply because they're an Arab country, it would send the wrong message to the Middle East & the world in general.  So, yes, I think Bush is actually doing the right thing.
406244
Yes, I don't want to sell the American ports to OPEC. No way!
195905
United Arab Emirates?
87248
I think it proves that cronyism is rampant in this administration. You know the UAE "donated" $100 million to the US for hurricane katrina just a few weeks before this all came up, also one of the UAE company that is doin this deal, DP world, top executives has been nominated by W to become our new Maritime Administrator.\n____________________________________________________________\n\nDubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member. \n\nThe White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.\n\nMr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company.\n____________________________________________________________\n\n\nWASHINGTON -- The United Arab Emirates gave the Bush administration $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina weeks before a state-owned company there sought U.S. approval for its ports deal. \n\nThe White House said Thursday the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the relationship between the two governments caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running significant operations at six major U.S. ports.
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!~
1163450
the usa government arranged it all, so they could have an excuse to invade middle east for oil. have u seen film farenheit 9/11 its all true x
121475
Since the ports in question were already managed by foreign interests, what difference what country the owner is from? The U.S. government handles security of all ports and many americans are employed there. The UAE has the largest port of the U.S. naval fleet in the entire mideast region and they are good allies and trading partners. \nBesides the obvious fact that congress should be notified in more advance of such a potential security issue in our country (and this is a matter of interpretation), nothing out of the ordinary has transpired with this transaction. Many corporations here are run by foreign companies. It is just more partisan politicking to cast doubt on the current presidential administration's policies.
148253
Because he is just a tool of the Republican Party, and has no integrity. It may be interesting to note that Treasury Secretary Snow (who's dept approved this deal) used to be CEO of CSX Corp. CSX was bought by the same UAE Govt-owned company that now wants to control our ports. Hmmmm, there wouldn't be any connection there would there?\n\nAlso, the differences between letting a British COMPANY own our ports and a Government (UAE) own our ports is HUGE, especially when that Govt has a bad track record in direct support of terrorists -- two of whom were on the 9/11 terror squad. Wake up, people.
217299
I quit years ago and see no value in it. The Dubai Ports deal has nothing to do with illegal domestic spying ( opposed ).\nThis question reads like a non sequitor.\n\nOn the Dubai ports deal, I find it deliciously ironic that after years of beating the drums about terrorism and 9/11 by the Bush Admin , the American public has a large number of rabid xenophobic folks that blokced this deal.\nWhat did he expect having had this thing happen in secret?
204571
Probably not, why would so many senators and congressman in both political parties be against it if it were a good idea.  The real question should be why does President Bush want Dubai to own the ports so bad?
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