Why would the USA give up operations of 6 American Ports to an foreign country?
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.
400914
its complicated.\nUK and US were allies. US helped with industry, which it sailed to UK. germany sunk some ships with US citizen eg the lusitania.\nmostly beacuse a lot of it allies, canada, australia, UK etc were fighting and US interests rested more with them than with Germany
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.
166172
There are only six affected by the Dubai Ports Worldwide takeover.  You should also know that the company isn't taking over the entire port.  They're only managing some of the terminals.  The number in parentheses shows how many they'll be operating in each port if the deal goes through)\n\nBaltimore (2 of 14)\nHouston (4 of 12)\nMiami (1 of 3)\nPhiladelphia (1 of 5)\nNew Orleans (2 of 5)\nNewark, NJ (1 of 4)\n\nHope that helps ya!  Don't forget to rate the best answer!\n\n\nEDIT: LOL, Loco!  Reminds me of when I was in science class in 8th grade.  The teacher put the question: "Name the four states of matter" on the test.   Then he wrote on the board:\n\n"States that matter: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Key West."
943445
Might as well Bush double talked that Port deal. Said it was off and a Year later the Same Corporation owns most US shipping.\n\nWe gave China most of Americas homes and land. Credit Card Wallmart debt is secured by peoples house value. China owns the debt China owns the mortgage.\n\nWe should sell the Army while we are at it. All those men in Iraq could drive over to Saudi Arabia and become the Saudi oil security force.\n\nGo big Red Go
1081426
They want something directly from the US.  They just haven't said what yet.\n\nThey also want to avoid making any further agreements with their neighbors in the region that would hamper their aspirations toward dominance of the region.
251438
What port? United States?
692121
Its a new form of colonisation i suppose. The more countries u get under the USA's influence, the more trade oppurtunities it brings to the US.\n\nEven when it comes to wars sponsored by the US, the weapons and equipment brings in money, not only to the economy but to the poilticiens as well.
865548
That is an interesting point about America from its neighbour. It is a pity that Americans have not earned the good will of even one of his neighbours. They need to have a re look at their international relations and relations with their neighbours.
118973
Ok..here it is broken down. THose east coast ports were being managed via contract through an English company. That company was bought out by a larger company in the United Arab Emerates. A lot of people feel that our national security is at risk if the UAE company assumes the port operations contract previously honored by the now bought out English port company. White House tried to pull a fast one and didn't tell Congress about it initially until it was almost a done deal. There you go.
267587
Yes.\n\nThe ports are not being sold.  They will still be owned by whoever owns them now.  What is being sold are contracts to operate various functions at the ports, like loading and unloading ships.  And those contracts are not being sold by the US government but by the foreign owned company that owns them now.  So, yes, I agree with the President on this one.
406244
Yes, I don't want to sell the American ports to OPEC. No way!
687761
I feel America does not want to control territory as such.It only wants to maintain its supremacy and balance of world power.Controlling new territories is not good for the USA instead it is troublesome for them to hold on to foreign countries.
417906
If you mean other countries owning shipping ports in our country, my personal opinion is no.  Why should another country have that kind of free access to our information and ports?  They shouldn't, just like we shouldn't have access to theirs.
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.
260220
It only shows other countries that the USA citizens will not be pushed around. I do care about the ports. I live about ten miles from one. If terrorist drove a boat up the canal and shot a rocket they could cause catastrophic damage and hurt more people than the towers falling in NY.\n\nCan you imagine your head being blown off from 10 miles away from a chemical plant being destroyed by some terrorist.
831977
This couldn't have been done 100 yrs. ago, let alone today.  No one in the states today wears clothes made in the USA.  We are so tangled with the Global Economy, we couldn't function if we withdrew.  There  would be no cars, computers, TV, trade of any kind, etc.  if we did that.  We have to be involved.  The question is about who is making the deals we get in, and who do they serve?  Today, we have been sold down the river by the powerful and they don't care what happens to you or your country.  We  should be telling them to go screw themselves.