Why was President Bush so determined to allow the sale of American Ports to the UAE?

Question

This is a question that needs an answer that can be understood sentence by sentence.

If you feel this question is an insult to you...it isn't.

I simply want to know why he wanted to sell those ports.

Furthermore, after his attempt to sell the ports why do you support or not support the Bush Administration? (This is an optional question to answer, you don't have to answer it.)

If you plan to insult me for this question you are no better than Osama and the Taliban themselves. It is my right to ask and yes, I'll admit it is your right to insult.

I need complete sentences that anyone in general can understand.

Five answers later and the question is still un-answered. I asked, why was he determined?

President Bush being determined to let the deal go through.....why?

Some of your answers have been very helpful to me so far in terms of the management being sold and not nesessarily being the ports themselves.

Also I've learned that it's not the UAE but Dubai.

Now lets try again, why was President Bush so determined?

Answer 1

Bush supported a plan to allow a company in Dubai (not the UAE government) to provide security services for ports. He did not try to "sell the ports." As to why, it's probably lobbyists. You will find that shipping companies are multi-national entities, with companies from all over the world handling the work. For example, the port at Long Beach is run by the Hanjin corporation, which is Korean.

At some point, the world is going to have to do business with Middle Eastern companies, and maybe someone thought this was a good way to go. However, the security of a port should be undertaken by local government, not by a commercial entity. To bad local governments may not have the money to do so.

Answer 2

First, he was not 'selling the ports'. This is a gross mischaracterization of what was actually happening.

There was a British corporation that is operating the port facilities - loading and unloading of containers. Dubai World Ports, which operates ports around the world, was buying the British company.

The US already has other foreign companies operating port operations, so this really isn't an issue, and shouldn't have been an issue. It was sickening to see people demagoguing this non-issue into a hyperventilating hysteria.

Second, The Bush administration was not 'selling' the port. What it did was do a background check and security analysis on the change in management companies, and declared that it posed no security threat. This is because the ports are NOT owned by the federal government.

As normal, all port security would continue to be controlled by the US Coast Guard and US Customs.

It was just overblown political hysteria over a non-issue. It was blatant anti-Arab raving, and our 'free press' in their effort to harm the president in any and every way, failed to accurately and truthfully report what was happening.

Answer 3

Did ya ever hear of the phrase "keep your friends close but keep your enimies closer?" Ok, just kidding about that...I don't think the UAE was going to be incharge of the ports...just the logistics and daily operations...

It could be a sting operation...let me try to explain. I hate to do this just incase it was the truth, but it's all blown now anyhow - so what's the difference...anyhow here goes:

Maybe the administration knows the UAE leaders good; good enough to trust them. Maybe the UAE leaders know some people that know the terrorist organizations and know the gererous donors that fund the terrorists. Maybe the UAE will pull some strings to do servaillance of the terroists. Maybe they can cut the funding. Maybe they can prevent the shipments of WMD's or bombs to the US. So, you see this would work out as a great thing for the US and the UAE, but not the terrorists.

I think most here, including me, don't understand the UAE's intentions. I don't think that they are lumped in with the radical terrorists, as one may sterotype about any country in the middle-east. However, I belive that they want rid of terrorism over there. They are (from what I heard) one of the richest nations or maybe it was one that has the highest number of billionairs/millionairs.

So knowing that you gotta ask...what is there intiention...I highly doubt that they are part of the radical muslum terrorists...they are better than that.

Answer 4

He was not selling the ports A British company was operating the ports. They were bought by a UAE company.

The difference is that the government of UAE owned the company so it is state property not a private company. (that ticked some people off here) I am convinced that it is pure racism agents Arabs that led to people to assume that because a country is Arab that they would cause our security (that they would not run) to be compromised.

I had no problems with this deal it is not uncommon for the government to own companies in the mid east and UAE is hardly are enemies, and they were quite mad when we would not approve the deal (they were the lowest bidder so now an American company who is not as good will get the job costing Americans more in the end)

How do we build relationships with other countries when we will not do business with them?

Answer 5

Bush wasn't "selling the ports" to anyone. The ports have different contracts with companies to run & manage them. This particular contract was already owned by a private company based out of England (sorry, can't remember their name).

This company had been losing profits, and decided to sell its contract to another company; one based in the UAE. So, Bush didn't "sell" anything to anybody. From my understanding this English company had this contract before he was even President.

As far as supporting Bush...I voted for him him twice...granted, the man's an idiot, but look at the two fools the Democrats put up. At least Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry at Yale...and well, Al Gore...that speaks for itself...

Whether we like it or not, this is a new world that we are facing. I disagreed with Bush on Iraq, but I'm all for Afghanistan getting their a$$ handed to them. I'm not sure that Democrats have what it takes to make this nation secure...sadly, neither party has put a real winner up the last two elections.

It seems that the anti-military far-left has taken over the Democratic party. Sadly, good decent moderates like Joe Lieberman will be kicked to the curb for standing by his guns...at least he has some sense about the threats our nation faces. I also give Hillary Clinton (can't stand her) credit for standing by her votes...we'll see who the Democrats put up next election...if its an anti-military type the Democrats will lose.

The American people are tired of the war in Iraq, but very few want an immediate pull-out because they realize that to do so would be a disaster. The last thing we need is another Iran that is being ran by religious idiots. The American people want a sensible exit strategy for Iraq, and a President who isn't afraid of kicking someones a$$ despite the worlds opinion.

No insults, and I used complete sentences... :)

Answer 6

you're puzzled about our device. each state votes. The part that wins receives to deliver representatives. those representatives, representatives of the electoral college, then pass the perfect votes. this is continually worked like that. once the overall election is over and the overall inhabitants has voted, their interest is done. it would not remember who were given a majority of the votes. the clarification behind it really is because if we went purely by majority the smaller states in our usa would regularly be beaten by the better states, continually bullied, continually dropping. The electoral college protects hostile to the tyranny of the better states. you at the instantaneous are not getting that. a marvelous variety of folk do not get that. they look to imagine this is all ok until eventually they lose, and they some ignorant U.S. electorate continually strengthen an disillusioned over it as if this is a few type of wonder, or new, or unjust. What utter garbage. also, you're completely incorrect about us having a Democracy. we've not in any respect had a Democracy and thank goodness for that! Democracies continually fail in communities more desirable than a small city-state, and briefly order. we've a Constitutional representative Republic with Democratic concepts or maybe it really is simplistic. The arguments you advance at the instantaneous are not new (they're 2 hundred years old, we've heard all of them earlier) and also they're unaware of what are device has been because the start. As to the Mexican device, you've my condolences. i'm no longer conscious of it, and am saddened on the shortcoming of existence on your usa. the most moral of you wade through very much, the criminals wade through besides, killing one yet another off contained in the streets, and everyone suffers as tourism disappears contained in the aftermath. notwithstanding, the shortcoming of combating the drug market on your usa for decades presented about efficient drug lords who've come to run the country in a great number of places. You closed the blinds. You fought the "conflict on drugs". Now you're identifying to purchase it. I propose you in straight forward words all vote on your drug lords and keep your self the difficulty. Or close the blinds back and elements them free reign that way. this is what you're suggesting. may besides.

Answer 7

Just like most Americans, you are a victim of bad information. The ports were not for sale. The terminal management was for sale. A port consists of many terminals. Our country owns the ports and if they were sold, the buyer would own a portion of this country and that would never happen. Instead of listening to the media and left wing politics, find the truth. It is out there!

Answer 8

Shrub did business with the bin Laden family in the past. He was also a major player in the BCCI bank collapse (a bank that was known for laundring terrorist money).

Interestingly, it was an investigation led by Senator John Kerry that led to the collapse of the BCCI bank.

Answer 9

Bush was never selling the ports.The question itself is wong and your explanation shows that you are worse fanatic then Osama and Taliban.

Answer 10

simply put; because he is the decider, and this is what he's decided.

he's one of those annoying people who's incapable of reasoning things through, or changing his mind, or compromising in any way. he cooked up this deal with Dubai, he couldn't get his way, now he's trying to weasel it through. if that doesn't work, watch him try to force the issue.

people can come up with all sorts of reasons for or against it. but the truth is that reasoning has nothing to do with it. this is what Dubya wants, so Dubya's gonna get it.