what are the pros and cons of the dubai port deal?
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.
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.
611896
My hope is that the future will show that, yes, it is worth it.  Not only to the Iraqis, but also for the entire region as well as to us.  If we can build allies in the region, it stands to reason that it will benefit us in the future.  Libya has been taken off of the list of terrorist nations.  Freedom and Democracy can be contatious.  Kuwait is a great example.
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.
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?
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.
693082
From everything I've been hearing it sounds like a good thing. This DOSE article explains it and gives pros and a couple cons such as U.S. shoppers stay home and Exports face big hit:\nhttp://www.dose.ca/toronto/news/story.html?s_id=FmGI7jJs%2fvNsKbIYHfHsL58A1k%2bbKk%2fCsKyVTYAwex8gv51EH2N3RQ%3d%3d
294207
This illustrates our (American) emotional irrationale of Arabs.  Ask any high ranking Navy official, the Dubai ports in the East are the safest ports on the planet.  We, here in America have unfairly targeted DP AFTER allowing them to bid on this business.  We are shamefully hippocritical sometimes.  I'm a conservative, and am ashamed of my government at this point.
1037360
Wow...many pros and cons to this.\nPros: up and coming business, definitely a future for this.\nCons:  liability issues, permit fees, government involvement (checking your business out)\nPretty tricky unless you know the right people who will have your back!
185625
Here is the latests from CNN, it breaks down the situation in greater detail and answers some key questions such as:\n\n\n\nWhy is the DP World/P&O deal controversial?\n\nSo, would DP World be worse at security than other foreign-owned companies?\n\nWhat are lawmakers doing now?\n\nWhy doesn't America run its own ports?
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.
733423
There are pros and cons.
18478
dubai is a signing member of an agreement known as the kyoto protocol.this is an agreemnt made by several countries to emmit a certin level of pollutans in order to protect the environment.this agreement becomes law and a standard is set for each industry in dubai to emmit only a certain level of contminants.if this level is exceeded by any industry,the state can either sue or shut down the industry if ammendments are not made to address the problem
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.
133965
The UAE has had finacial links to certian terriost groups and that concerns the congress. I am in no way advocating that the UAE has close ties to terriost groups, but in time or war it wouldn't be the smartest idea to allow this to happen. The UAE already runs ports in the middle east & orient. If they had our ports, where is the check & balance? If we could ensure that every container was to be x-rayed and checked that arrived on our shores, then there would probably not be a huge issue. Unfortuantly, only about 10% of the containers are checked. It is better to be safe than sorry.
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.
954167
Tracking down a pub mate?\n\nIt is a oil rig refurbishing company based in Dubai:\n\nhttp://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=%C2%A7ion=business&xfile=data/business/2006/September/business_September406.xml