Arab-run ports in the USA? Why would this not be considered a potential problem by the US government?
140305
Why would it?  Security at US ports remains the responsibility of the US Coast Guard and US Customs and Border Protection.\n\nThe company previously running those ports is a British company.  DPW bought out the British company and the rights to the ports along with it.  Why does it matter where the profits go to?\n\nThey aren't in charge of security.  Repeat. They aren't in charge of security.
83329
The security of the ports in question would still be the responsibility of the USA (Coast Guard, Customs, etc.) and the employees would still be US citizens (stevadores, etc.)  Presently, port security begins overseas where cargo sent to the USA must be examined in foreign ports.  The main concern may be that foreign nationals may become too familiar with our security measures and a few might abuse their knowledge (here rather than overseas).
136060
Since we could never afford to inspect more than 5% of all inbound cargo what does it matter who schedules and unloads the shipments? Yes, I think its probably fine for the UAE to operate the 21 ports. We should NEVER reliquish security, and in fact we should step up investigations of new port workers.
991252
Well I don't know for sure, but I believe it will be on a cruise ship somewhere and to keep it on the American side it will probably happen before it leaves one of our ports.   A cruise ship is its on little island and the only place that have people of different origins with money. Everything else is happening on cruise ships why not that. I just wonder if the government has thought about that... but then again if the ship is out in the ocean it will be out of the US jurisdiction and our great Government will not care what happens to anybody on that ship let alone the American Citizens.
863882
Makes a whole lot of sense to me!  Never thought of it, but great point!  I agree that the USA would do something about it if they wanted to.
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.
49925
The US Government, for the most part, is ill-informed about the Mid-east. All we are proving is that we are the biggest kid on the block.\nBesides, war is always a money maker and an economey improver.
239249
Emirates is a very westernized place, half of population are expats. It is essentially a model of how US wants to see the rest of Arabian world. Turning them down says "no matter how civilized you are, we still do not trust you b/c you are arabs"\n\nNot to mention that they will not run the terminals, just own a share in a British company that owns a share in US company that runs the terminals. And that "runs" means paying electricity bill for a warehouse; the security is still maintained by Coast Guard, INS, Customs.
290631
The United States government could compete for the contract, if it so chose.  But what generally happens is that the US government does not actually do the work, but subcontracts it out to private companies.  That is what happened in the UAE ports deal.  The US was subsidizing out security operations to a private company.  However, in the UAE, the government actually owns, operates and profits from certain companies (capitalistic societies, especially the US, try to minimize this).\n\nSo the US government is in charge of the port security. They hire a company to oversee it on behalf of the government.  That company is bought by a company that is owned by the UAE government.  Since the late 1990s, a good number of US ports on the West Coast have been operated by China in the same manner, and the UAE actually oversees a number of other ports from late 2002 that they were given in another contract.\n\nCompetition of any type is good in a free-market, as long as it is done fairly and ethically.
84080
It seems that even some of the republicans are starting to question the ideas of the bush administration. I was at my mechanic yesterday and overheard rush limbaugh (on the radio, of course) even criticizing bush's plan. It seems like selling the ports to the arab company is like asking the fox to gaurd the hen house. \nI think the Congress will try and stop Bush from going through with the sale since republicans and democrats are against it. Bush says he'll veto any act by Congress concerning the matter, but i would not be shocked to see the veto overridden. That would certainly be exciting and representative of our nation's growing disatisfaction with our president.
231116
Yes, currently the chinese govt manages a port on the West coast. Apprently its run quite efficiently.
148942
Personally, I think it is a poor decision.  However, whether we agree or not, here is some logic to it.  The company is only getting a contract to manage these ports.  Even the hiring is primarily controlled by the unions and the security is controlled by the United States Government.  This company also has heavy experience in this and has demonstrated friendship with the United States.\n\nAs individuals we may not agree that this is a good decision, but cursing President Bush and defining him with expletives does little to change the situation.  If anyone disagrees, look into it and develop some facts that support your suggestions to change it.    Contact your Congressional Representatives and make your point of view known.  Develop lobbying groups in your community and have them all work together to change this situation.\n\nWithout such an effort the current situation will prevail.
406244
Yes, I don't want to sell the American ports to OPEC. No way!
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.
369059
Matter a fact I am pretty sure the U.S.Navy has an installation there anyway. Mass could fight back! There are several submarines at port there.
141048
Do you really want to know all the details of why such ports are being given to a Middle-eastern business to run?  What if it is a sting operation?  Should we just publish the details and fight it?  Isn't that what we're doing?\nLeave it alone.  Bush knows what he is doing.
1061547
Best rundown of what's going on with this NAU plan here:\nhttp://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965\n\nI don't think Americans will go for it. You can listen to an interview with the author of that article: http://www.israelnationalradio.com/\nHe's said that the story should reach the mainstream media soon. So, this should become a hot topic.