UAE Running American Ports?

I feel like a a-hole for saying this but I do not want ANY foreign company responsible for our ports security. I think this responsibility should be handled by a American company or government agency.

Why don't we give the contract to Haliburton?

Now that, I can't disagree with. But if it is going to a foreign country, it just seems just anti-Muslim to DQ the UAE. Our country has people who do horrible things and the banks here hold money that is used for horrible things, but it doesn't really seem like that's the governments fault. (does the UAE have state-run banks? If they're private, I can't see why the government is at fault... I'll admit that I'm not well-versed on the details of UAE's involvement in 9-11. Willing to have my mind changed.)

From what I've heard, the private companies aren't in charge of security.  That still falls to the Coast Guard and some other federal government things.  The fact of the matter is that there are already foreign countries that are incontrol of some of the ports.  It doesn't seem right to be against this one just because they are from UAE.  I feel like people should be against all of them. 

Security is a concern for me, but it's a concern whether or not this company takes over the ports. I don't think enough has changed to make security better. 

The port in Abu Dhabi, is one of the busiest yet most effecient ports in the world. I am sure their goal is to do the same with their US interest. Besides we have to keep them happy, maybe they will up their production in oil and our prices can go down.

BUSH had nothing to do with this, there is a seperate commitee that handles this. (and then people bagged on him for "not knowing" they kill me)

Tyrant, Although I agree that this issue is not a big deal at all, Bush did know.  The commitee responsible for this decision was comprised of Condy, Rumsfeld, Hadley and I think one other person.  With that line up you can be sure Bush knew.

The UAE will not be managing the ports. A company based in the UAE will be managing the ports. The labor pool actually running the ports are Americans and those who have been granted work visas. Security background checks apply.

The Administration says this has been examined/scrutinized/vetted. I'm comfortable with that.

Isn't the company state-owned? 

I don't know, Jim. Is it? Here's what the NY Times is reporting:

The deal would transfer the leases for ports in New York, Baltimore and Miami, among others, from a British-owned company to one controlled by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates. But the security of the ports is still the responsibility of Coast Guard and Customs officials. Foreign management of American ports is nothing new, as the role already played by companies from China, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and trading partners in Europe attests.

While critics of the deal have raised the specter that it might open the way to the "infiltration" of American ports by terrorists from the Middle East, the Dubai company would in most cases inherit a work force that is mainly American, with hiring subject to the same regulations as under the current British management.

AND THIS: 

"I'm not worried about who is running the New York port," a senior inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, insisting he could not be named because the agency's work is considered confidential. "I'm worried about what arrives at the New York port."

That port, along with the five others Dubai Ports hopes to manage, are the last line of defense to stop a weapon from entering this country. But Mr. Seymour, head of the subsidiary now running the operations, says only one of the six ports whose fate is being debated so fiercely is equipped with a working radiation-detection system that every cargo container must pass through.

Closing that gaping hole is the federal government's responsibility, he noted, and is not affected by whether the United Arab Emirates or anyone else takes over the terminals.

It seems to me to be some opportunistic Henny Pennyism from the Democrats; and the Republicans are being weak in taking up the same cry. It caters to racism and our worst natures.

During the 90s, the Republic of Panama awarded port lease/management to China (or, a Chinese government-owned port management company). People in the US (including Rushbaugh and the usual reactionary suspects) cried out that we are making ourselves vulnerable to Chinese missiles just a few hours south of US land; that the Chinese would have control over what goods make transit through the Canal. As far as I know, the Chinese have not launched any missiles at the US from the Panamanian ports, nor have they restricted the transit of goods.

 Bush = The Best Security Possible

Chucky, source for that Gif?  It's a nice pretty picture that seems to say something, but it's kinda vague.  I note the UAE is also not on there.

The whole thing is stupid.  This is why I detest most politicians.  It's nothing more than a political "hey look at me" manufactured bruhaha.

The company that currently is operating in these ports is being aquired by a UAE based holding company.  They are *not* responsible for security.  The same US workers who work at those ports for the British company that is being bought will continue to work there doing the same job.  They are going to pay US citizens/workers to unload containers from container ships.  <sarcasm> Wow.  OMG.  National Security threat!  Code Red!  Send in the Marines!  </sarcasm>

If the 9/11 terrorists used Chase Manhattan, would we call for scrutiny of every merger aquisition undertaken by Chase?  Many of the 9/11 meetings occured in Germany.  Shall we ban BMW from importing cars to the US because of their "ties to terrorism"?

The politicians are playing chicken little here, and the sad thing is that the American public is letting them get away with it.  Truly a sad day indeed.

I wholeheartedly support Bush on this, and hope he backs up his veto promise if anyone is inane enough to actually push through legislation aimed at blocking this.  

-Chris 

Thanks for the link to the source data.

The actual questions and responses, are bit more complex than the simplistic graphic.

Here's the full questionairre and the responses:  http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/206.pdf

( See question 13 on page 11 )

What was asked was 'What about suicide bombings carried out against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq?"  With only two choices 'Justifiable and Not Justifiable'.  Not quite what the graphic purports. 

Of course, the simplistic graphic helps if you're trying to stir up racial/ethnic/religious prejudice so I can see why it was used.