Should Bush give away control of ports to Dubai?
85754
The UAE is not really an Arab country in the way most Americans think of Arab States. Many American Citizens live there. Now the timing is bad just because we are so scared that even countries that are allies are hurt. It is a shame.\n\nPeople from the USA will still be running our ports. The workers are all from the USA. The reason we are scared is because the word Arab is in the name of the country. They are an economic powerhouse. They have _no oil_. They gained power through the free market like the USA.\n\n*The UAE is what we want Iraq to be.*\n\nIt should be investigated as the climate we are in calls for that. The congress should have been clued into this before. The secretive nature of this Bush administration is very worrysome. There is no reason to deny them other than their location in the world. It makes me wonder if something else is going on. He claims he had not known untill it was to late. How could he not know! I do not accept this. It makes me very nervous.\n\nThe investigation must be done, but a decision must be made fairly speedily or countries around the UAE will use it against the USA to turn more people in that region away from us.\n\nUPDATE:\nWow, I just heard the senate hearing on this. Appearantly, Bush was giving Dubai some breaks with this deal. He did not require them to make copies of business files in the USA, where they would be subjected to court orders from us. Also he did not designate a US citizen to make sure they were in compliance with US terms. This is so shady!
156103
Bush has sold control of most of our major ports to a country that has ties to 9/11, the man is off his rocker , but his sheep will still follow him because God forbid they admit they were wrong about him lol
173199
I think George W Bush is possibly the worst president ever, but in this case I tend to agree with you.  There is no reliable way to say it is ok for some countries to manage ports, but for others it isn't.  It does seem to be a case of a phobia of arab nations and a quick way for both sides of the aisle to disingenuously try and gain political points for doing what they paint as the "pro-American anti-terrorism" move in blocking it.
537394
of Course ! that will be one of US hiding reason after WMD for invade Iran. Bush will take that option coz Iran is a threat for economic and politic of US.especially for rhe democracy program in middle east.
952849
George Bush never set foot outside the US until he became President. How could he possibly make a remotely rational decision on foreign policy? Travel as President of the US wouldn't give you any opportunity to assess the situation in any way other than from the view your handlers wanted you to have. Not only is the US foriegn policy isolationist, its the product of an isolated and insular executive.
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....
359791
I think both. I think mostly he has a grand idea about changing the nature of the Middle East so that it's less dangerous to the U.S., but so far he doesn't seem to be succeeding.
350374
Absolutly not!! We wouldn't take the states if bush wrapped it up and  gave it to us with a bow. The states would screw up our economic triumphs and social gains. The us would only be a step in the wrong direction.
217299
I quit years ago and see no value in it. The Dubai Ports deal has nothing to do with illegal domestic spying ( opposed ).\nThis question reads like a non sequitor.\n\nOn the Dubai ports deal, I find it deliciously ironic that after years of beating the drums about terrorism and 9/11 by the Bush Admin , the American public has a large number of rabid xenophobic folks that blokced this deal.\nWhat did he expect having had this thing happen in secret?
84811
No. I think the government is stretched thin. I think that it would a good idea to have the ports privately owed. \n\nHmmm..... I think our national security should be a top priority. Obviously, we don't want all our ports owed by a country in a volatile region. I guess I would say no. Our ports should be controlled by US companies, with a lot of experience in security. Obviously, we respect Dubai but we need to be careful on who owns our ports.
237834
People only care about things as much as they need to care. Which means they tend to have incomplete information and make snap judgements. And, since they only have enough information to be able to think a problem through to a given point, they tend to readily accept sophisms.\n\nAt least, that explains how Bush got elected, how he could be right about allowing the port deal to go through, and how he could screw up something as simple as pointing out that Arab-owned companies already run many US ports.
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.
244585
We weren't.  What happened is that the British company that held the contract to manage the ports was purchased by Dubai World Imports, a port management company owned by the UAE.  This led to worries that the UAE would use access to the ports as a way to sneak terrorists into the country. Congress was simply trying to decide wether to get out of the contract and go with another company or maintain the status quo.\n\nThe ports are still owned by the United States and security is handled by the Coast Guard.  The management company only handles day to day operations.\n\nWe are looking for a management company now, because the UAE has withdrawn any claims to that contract.
159213
The UAE deal has been public since the 9/11 Commission released their report.  Consistent with this report and the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Bush administration authorized the negotiation of a free trade deal with the UAE back in 2004, as part of a way to create a MEFTA - the Middle East Free Trade Agreement.  And the hypocrites in Congress who are suddenly SOOOO concerned can go back to their very own Congressional Record and see that the majority of them SUPPORTED and commented favorably on this method of opening up trade, commerce, and international security with that part of the world - to specifically include the UAE.
47619
Personaly, i think bush jus wants there dam oil. And i think he might of been plotting to attck them, but wasnt ready to make a move. But wen the towers were bombed, it gave him a reasone to bomb them back. But hold up. think for a secound. what if it wasnt the iraquis fault. What if the iraquis didnt really hi-jack those plans. What if bush set it all up...hahaha, think about that. OH and watch farenhit 9/11...kik ass movie
616521
SURE :-) WHY NOT :-)\n\nAny woman who could control Bart Simpson in class would make a better job at President of the USA than President Bush!
121475
Since the ports in question were already managed by foreign interests, what difference what country the owner is from? The U.S. government handles security of all ports and many americans are employed there. The UAE has the largest port of the U.S. naval fleet in the entire mideast region and they are good allies and trading partners. \nBesides the obvious fact that congress should be notified in more advance of such a potential security issue in our country (and this is a matter of interpretation), nothing out of the ordinary has transpired with this transaction. Many corporations here are run by foreign companies. It is just more partisan politicking to cast doubt on the current presidential administration's policies.