Do you think the Bush Adminstration should hand over security and control of several major ports to Dubai?
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.
736201
No. He'll find some reason or another to stay. (Can't forget that oil). Again, Bush is in quite a bit of trouble right now. Remember, The US took a large number of young Iraqis to "train" for security purposes. Many of them went to Jordan. The streets are not secure and it will take a while for them to become secure. I don't believe this "westernized" method of training is doing any good in Iraq. In that respect, I believe Maliki has other plans to provide security.  Even if it means "using" al Sadr.and Iran. And Syria.
495048
i believe the late sheikh of UAE was the best leader for the whole gulf region and definately a father to all of us.. rose the country to new standards and is now considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world\n\nmy god bless his soul
97861
I think Pres. Bush needs all of the vacation time possible. If we were wasting trillons of American dollars, making a total political mess of American government, and trying to become a global hegemon (look it up), we would be begging for vacation time, too.
721527
The trouble is that George Bush, no matter how resolute, has never understood the Arab world. He has blundered his way through territory that should have been about diplomacy and careful planning. Now, instead, we have a mess in Iraq and almost universal mistrust of everything American. His bully boy tactics have created a politics of fear. And yes, I do believe that his miscalculated entry into Iraq has been the source of discontent that has sponsored the growth of terrorism.
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.
955669
I think that the ports are the most vulnerable.  Only a tiny percentage of cargo containers that past through the US ports are inspected.  One can only imagine what is slipping through.
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.
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.
479443
pro: They know their ports....clean, efficient, better service.\ncon: Every ararbic country seems to hav donated either a terrorist or money to terrorists (exception Kuwait?)...  makes you wonder if one of those terrorists will take advantage of the port deal.
88133
It's not six, it's twenty-one!  Dubai is a GOVERNMENT RUN company.  And the government that owns it has allowed Al Queda to launder money through their country, in essence, funding terrorism against the United States of America.  They, Dubai, have also banned CNN from doing anymore interviews or to video tape their operations overseas.  They really want to silence Lou Dobbs.  Why, if they are on the up and up?  Please DON'T BE SO IGNORANT as to think Americans don't want Muslims controlling our ports (port authority).  We don't want terrorists or terrorist funders controlling our ports (port authority).\n***\nTwo of the 9/11 highjackers were from the UAE, the UAE continues to harbor arms dealers and terrorists, the UAE recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate governmet, the UAE refuses to accept Israel as anything but non-existent...I am glad and proud that this action is being questioned.  Listen to your radios, crack open some print, do the research, you will see that there are too many shady business deals and lying going on here for this deal to be legit.  First Bush says he'll veto (he has yet to use this power since he has been president) ANY act passed by Congress to halt these proceedings, then the VERY NEXT DAY he said he didn't even know about the deal until the American public knew about it...Why all the lies and secrecy if this deal is on the up and up?\n***\nLet's debate, not be mean to one and other.
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!~
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.
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.
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.
241825
I am Soooooooo glad this is happening.  Republicans are going to have to worry about what theiCONSTITUENTSTS want - we are going into the mid terms and Bush has placed them in an impossible bind.  They will have to override Bushes veto and end his leadership of the party.   How could Bush have gotten this so wrong? \n\nMy guess is that Bush, who likes to hold hands with princes from the Arab Emirates,( check out the footage of him walking and holding hands with Prince Bandar  ), has more vested interests in the financial dealings with Gulf Coast Arab nations - than his own country. \n\nThe Bushes are also  good friends of the Bin Laudens too.\n\nThis is not going down well.  I don't honestly know if this is really a security concern, but Dubai has two of the hijackers, if laundered the money for the 9/11 attack and REFUSED US invetigators access to financial records.\n\nThis port deal has a bad feel to it.  A 62-2 vote in Congress passed to block this Dubai port deal. The acquisition of any leases, transfer is prohibited\nand attached to a bill the president wil find hard to veto. \n\nWith the President's poll levels at their lowest, its time for Republican congressmen to distance themselves.\n\nThis action by the appropriations committes is VETO proof. \nWhat options does the White House have?
367622
No, the Gulf War was just away for the Bush Regime to take over the areas that they deem as the necessary regions to further their takeover for oil domination. Sorry for them they cannot get what they want....