Are Arabs being allowed to buy US seaports?
80945
Arguementally,allowing the Arabs to buy and control our ports would be like selling our soul to the devil.\nThis will be allowing another 9/11 incident that much more possible to happen in the near future somewhere in our country,watch and see if I'm right or wrong as time moves on.
648939
No, all Arabs are camel riders and terrorists and all Americans are glorious defenders of "freedom" and democracy with fantastic moral values.\n\nIsn't this the answer you are looking for? I hope this will make you happy.
1104260
Y don't you wanna invest in Ocean front property in Iraq?
1130790
You are Qatari..Very good. I allow myself to say that I have plenty of knowledge about Qatar,the today's situation,the development,the inimitable policy of HH.Amir Al-Thani (I even an year ago sent HIm an official letter).I have my own opinion of Qatar. Fine,what you have in mind like doing business? Could you represent yourself in brief..
742330
Moot question.... *NO* Arab country has *ever* made such an offer. In fact they have *repeatedly* rejected resettlement of *any* of the Palestinians.  Nor is it likely at all that such an offer *ever* will be made. If it were possible I'm sure the Jews would *gladly* pay for the Palestinians to go. Wouldn't you pay to keep your children safe from idiots?
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.
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!~
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.
57712
Purely speculation, but I would assume as long as the Gulf War continues, & some years after, yes. Haliburton has numerous overseas contracts to rebuild the middle east, & growing.
186096
The company in Dubai that wanted to buy the ports from Great Britain own ports around the world. They are a reputable company, and I am sure it all boiled down to the all mighty dollar, or pound sterling as the case may be. You have to remember that it was not the government of Great Britain selling the ports, but a company based in Great Britain. I am sure we have many corporations and business in America that do business that the government would not approve of.
86234
I think it illustrates the double standards of current popular sentiment, which, by the way, is simply Bush's fear-mongering blowing up in his face.  He'sold Arabs as the boogey-man too well for too long for Joe 6-Pack to feel OK with them as the local port authority.\n\nOur knee-jerk reaction to the UAE and the fact that in reality, US companies operate fewer than 10 US ports reveals the US population for the xenophobes that we actually are.\n\nToo bad we (as a culture) waste so much energy spitting and cussing about "them" and don't take the time to understand the REAL connections that are running this world.\n\nNot religion, skin color, border lines or flags, but banks and big business.
957079
Yes I definitely think they need to be bought in the US from a government contractor.  Boy, this globalism is really getting out of hand, on security issues.  First the ports, then this.\n\nBy the way, I had been planning on voting early by machine.  I guess I'd better look into the software first...
329934
Dont get the two confused.One thing I will tell you is that Arabs and Muslims dont easily do business with Jews.\nMake sure you find out the does and dont's culture wise before you attempt to do any business.\nEven if you have a great product you can screw it up by not taking stock of how your foreign client deals.  \n\nTake a look at http://thebaldchemist.blogspot.com  for some guide lines into how people are.
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.
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.
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.
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.