Why are people in the US upset that a company in Dubai will run 6 seaports in the US?
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).
101067
They are not. UAE is not taking over port management.  Dubai Ports World a company based out of UAE is taking over ports management. P&O based out of Britain(Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation) was managing the ports. P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World.
369388
I disagree, it's right here in America in the Gulf of Mexico. I used to work for United Pipe out of Houston, Texas.\n\nThey just pump out the crude and send it to our refineries in the Gulf. We also have refineries on the West Coast, New England refineries. The rest is sent up the Mississippi River to Saint Louis.
635113
Well, seeing as New Orleans is a major trading port, companies had to pay extra for goods to be shipped to other ports. Causing prices to rise all over the country, (especially gas). Which is causing a negative economic effect.
143295
Most US ports don't make a lot of money - or rather, they didn't many years ago.  The reason P&O first got into the business of managing ports around the world is simply...because they do a very good job of it.\nContrary to popular opinion, Dubai and the UAE are not supporters of terrorism.  On the contrary - they have proven to be some of the US' best allies in the region.  Not all Muslims think alike.\nIt is not a question of ownership of our ports; they are still owned in the US.  It is a question of management.  Cargo handling and port management were farmed out many years ago because there were companies that could do a better job at a lower price.  Do you, as a taxpayer, want to shell out millions of dollars to keep an unproductive port limping along in business - or get new management, and make the port productive and able to support itself?\nWhen was the last time you heard about a dockworkers' strike affecting our ports?  They were almost monthly occurrences in the '50s and '60s.  New management has reined in the excesses of the unions while improving throughput of cargo, thereby spreading prosperity for everyone concerned.
288217
I am not sure what it is you are asking but if you are asking that should the government go with the deal, I'd say sure. As long as Bush and his cronies benefit from the deal, who cares about anything else?\nIf you are asking WILL the government go for the deal, I think it will go through. Neither the government of UAE nor the company that will be put in charge of the project benefit from terrorist attack on the US ports. Global business is likes calm continuity to prosper. The money will not go far either. Thanks to multinational financial corporations and big business, money spent on security of US ports to a Dubai based company will be deposited in the Hong Kong branch of an English bank account backed by US government bonds.
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.
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.
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.
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?
230471
As a democrat I find it fascinating. I don't think it's worth all the fuss. Globalization is the future and I'm personally not worried that the Dubai company will allow any more breaches in port safety than an American company would.\n\nBut I'm enjoying all the flack Bush is getting from his own constituents over this.
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.
1080709
No. Its going to Dubai, in the U.A.E.
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.
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.
257294
If these companies weren't so greedy and always thinking about profits all the time...americans needs jobs, too.  The state in which I live in have offered some companies here very nice incentives for them to stay instead of moving operations to Mexico or somewhere where is are plenty of cheap labor.  There are too many greedy companies and corporations out there.  Seriously, what are they going to do with all that money?
260220
It only shows other countries that the USA citizens will not be pushed around. I do care about the ports. I live about ten miles from one. If terrorist drove a boat up the canal and shot a rocket they could cause catastrophic damage and hurt more people than the towers falling in NY.\n\nCan you imagine your head being blown off from 10 miles away from a chemical plant being destroyed by some terrorist.