Do you think it is ethical for America to let arab interest operate the major seaports in the United States?
142919
no thats like giving them an easy way in its stupid
406244
Yes, I don't want to sell the American ports to OPEC. No way!
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.
230471
As a democrat I find it fascinating. I don't think it's worth all the fuss. Globalization is the future and I'm personally not worried that the Dubai company will allow any more breaches in port safety than an American company would.\n\nBut I'm enjoying all the flack Bush is getting from his own constituents over this.
440389
America would do anything just for the sake of Dollars. America is the wife of Israel.
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.
49935
It's bizarre since all arabs have the same language, culture and history.\n\nIt is also odd since Israel is smaller than the size of New Jersey and the arab states are huge.\n\nAdding to the confusion is that every arab country is totalitarian, and we really don't need more of those in this world (i.e. yet another place where women are subjugated, people's rights are trampled, etc).\n\nPresumably the madness will end when the USA is no longer dependent upon arab oil.  The likelihood is that no one will care and the arabs will all kill each other (as they did in centuries past).  In the meantime, the USA is somewhat dependent upon the Israelis not rocking the boat too much, and the Israelis do their best to comply with American directives.
551785
A. Bomb first, ask questions later\nB. The proof is in the pudding, what have we accomplished?\nC. Lots, it's a strategic ally with great harbors and a good pit stop to the middle east if needed. Also as the holy land it does hold a certain soft spot in the hearts of Americans. As much as Palestinians hate both Americans and Isrealis do you think the place would remain sacred and UNTOUCHED?
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.
161372
I believe that the company from the UAE is probably a safe and legitimate company.  However, I do not have faith that terrorists wont find a way to infiltrate the company and turn the situation to their advantage.  A company from another nation making such a purchase should be a good thing in America, but how easy would it be for a few terrorists to get hired on and sneak things into our country?  The Coast Guard and Homeland Security dont have my trust so I dont think that we should be tempting fate.
228907
America is in "Arabia" because some idiots decided it would be a good idea to crash planes into buildings. if America was just there for the oil, i wouldn't be paying nearly 3 dollars a gallon for gas. I don't remeber anyone from ghana being on one of the planes.
910673
In some aspects, they do have a point.\n\nThe USA won't mind our own business. The arabs see the USA as imperialist hell bent on destroying them.\n\nThe US needs to do some good PR and change the situation.
600416
Bush administration is following wrong policies.\nThey may not be on a crusade but all their present targets are unfortunately Muslims who are rich in natural resources but far behind in technology, hence an easy prey.\nIn the ultimate analysis/conclusion USA will never win since their stance is based on in-justice, inequality and double standards.
43472
Okay, Torture is never right, and American should not support it or "contract out" the torture with another state.  That said, we should be open to information passed to us by other countries.  MOST middle eastern countries allow and encourage torture, so do we have no allies at all?  Tough ethical question, no real answer.
167057
Bush isn't selling the ports ... they already belong to a British company that is selling them to a company from the UAE.\n\nAnd US always has and will continue to be responsible for security at the ports, regardless of what company owns them
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.
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.