Foreign control of our ports

[shomymojo]

[shomymojo]

[hm0504]

Are not the two NO answers essentially the same?

[Nudeinbama]

Our ports, We run them and always ensure we know what comes and go,Elsewise ,we're just asking for big troubles.
Nudeinbama

[Bob S.]

I would disagree with a foreign coungtry owning or operating any of our ports, especially any major ones.

I have no problem with a private corporation based in a foreign country owning or operating such ports or certain aspects of it.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Bush says Dubai port deal should go forward
21 Feb 2006 20:55:14 GMT
Source: Reuters
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, Feb 21 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.

Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said.

He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto." [/list]
-Mark

[jon71]

It's not like Bush actually cares about domestic security or the threat of terrorism. It's just something he drums up so he can take away our American rights and freedoms.

[UnitedNudists]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
It's not like Bush actually cares about domestic security or the threat of terrorism. It's just something he drums up so he can take away our American rights and freedoms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does it matter? There's no terrorist threat. Bush made it all up.

[Naturist Mark]

Of course there is a terrorist threat. But Bush becomes more powerful the less he actually does to deal with it.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Is Foreign control of our major ports a good idea...especially an Arab country like UAE...or even China...who currently operate a port in California </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know I didn't know that foriegn companies are running our ports. I think this is an idiotic idea. Even if its just the "operation" aspect of the port, those operating it could certainly, and easily, find a way to smuggle stuff in.

This IS a national security issue and NO foriegn company should be allowed to operate our ports or borders.

Qikdraw

[Paniga]

The u.s. ports have been ran by foriegn country for a while now. Its just another company that is handling it now ( i wouldnt be suprised if they do it cheaper than the american companys)

[nudeM]

Aside from the obvious answer, why wasn't this an issue when Britain did the same exact thing, i.e., operating the ports on U.S. soil? I agree this 'could' be trouble, but then again, if the offer was there and up for bids, why did Britain decide to leave? Are we not in an uproar because UAE is of the Muslim faith?

Very interesting situation. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[sw1sweendog]

with all ports combined,only 5% of containers are checked.a good way to get alot of bad stuff through.

[Naturist Mark]

from www.bobgeiger.com (http://www.bobgeiger.com) : <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> What The F&*^, For This He Is Willing To Use A Veto????
Written by The Cranky Liberal from Bring It On!

Oh Daddy must be soooo proud of lil Wire Tap sticking his neck out to threaten his first Veto over the UAE taking over management of our ports. I mean how warm and fuzzy must the he be that his boy is willing to pass endless amounts of pork, but dag gum when it comes to law makers acting furiously over handing over our highly insecure ports over to a country where two of the 9/11 attackers came from - suddenly he's Bill Clinton waving a pen. Way to take a stand George.

Look, I don't know enough about the deal to say that Dubai Ports World can't do a great job running six of the countries biggest ports. I am not even suggesting that there would be any threat from them running the ports - what I am saying is it looks awful funny that he is willing to draw a line in the 'sand" for a company and country that has friendly ties to his Daddy and old James Baker. This guy doesn't even know how to spell UAE but he's sure they pose no threat.

And, maybe they don't. But when a President decides with unilateral authority to break the law in the name of "security," when he decides that curbing certain civil rights are OK in the name of "security," when he pressed the nation into WAR and leaves thousands of our friends and family Dead over "security," then by GOD he better be willing to listen to the will of the people that he represents. He better listen to the House and Senate who are supposed to oversee his administration and check to make sure he is balanced.

Remember, I am not urging any specific action at this point whether the deal is OK or not. I'm just angry that the "Security" President won't even listen to Americans when they say we're worried.

How do you feel now, Red Team? How's your fearless leader lookin to ya these days?

Can't say we didn't tell ya. [/list]

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
Aside from the obvious answer, why wasn't this an issue when Britain did the same exact thing, i.e., operating the ports on U.S. soil? I agree this 'could' be trouble, but then again, if the offer was there and up for bids, why did Britain decide to leave? Are we not in an uproar because UAE is of the Muslim faith? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly I don't care where the company comes from, it should be a US company.

I wasn't in an upraor about a British company running them because I simply didn't know. NBow that I know I think its stupid.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

No company outside or inside the USA for that matter, will run the ports here.

The Dock Workers Union and Teamsters already run them and nobody is going to change that. Just try and get anything done on the docks without their approval.

The only docks not run by the unions are military docks and I don't believe even the shrub and his cronies are that stupid as to allow foreign control there yet.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

The only docks not run by the unions are military docks and I don't believe even the shrub and his cronies are that stupid as to allow foreign control there yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Yes they are! (http://www.nysun.com/article/27982)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World - on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters, and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. [/list]

-Mark

[missouriboy]

It's not just the ports; how about the Panama Canal? (Excuse me, I mean the "American Canal in Panama.") The Canal is now operated by a Chinese company, and don't forget who controls companies in China -- the government, of course. China has fast become our main economic rival, and in the not-too-distant future, when push comes to shove, do you think the Chinese government will allow our Navy ships to pass through that canal? The very canal that WE built, with our own blood and treasure, in our own hemisphere?

And don't try to blame it on your so-called "Shrub." This transpired a decade ago under the president who started it all by transfering US military and technology secrets to China in exchange for (illegal foreign) campaign contributions. But it was actually done by the Panamanian government, and who signed the treaty to turn canal ownership and control over to Panama? Jimmy Carter!

But I only say those things to put your partisan rantings into the proper perspective -- this is NOT a partisan thing! This kind of bull**** happens under every administration, continuously, and it's generally not the president who orchestrates it -- he is just the "current" spokesman for the people who actually DO run this stuff. The CIA instigates and controls more events around the whole world than 99% of the sheeple are aware of, but they only learn about it from the "current" shill in the White House (like going off the gold standard in the early '70s -- do you think that was Nixon's personal idea?)

[nacktman]

Mark, I stand corrected.

I should have known they were that stupid, but with the syncophants clamoring on and on about true Americans always bashing them I thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt ... won't make that mistake again.

[usmc1]

Here is an illustration of why I just do not believe Mr. Bush about anything, and actually am firmly convinced that he uses the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to propagandize his agendae and to inflame emotional responses to situations where cold hard analytical thinking would better serve us.

We're told that we're in a War On Terror, but where is the national mobilization? Where is the urgency, the victory gardens, the draft, the securing of our borders and ports? Where?

Either we're under threat from muslim extremists or we're not. If we are, does it make sense to place our ports in the hands of an operating company from a country known to have had connections to the very terrorists with whom we're supposedly at war.

During WWII would we have turned our ports over Friedrich Flick and his holding company (well, maybe if Dubyah's grandpa, Prescott, could have had his way), or Japanese industrialist, Aikawa Yoshisuke? I am very confident the answer would be no.

Why then, would we even countenence such a thing with the UAE. The reality of the situation is taht even is the UAE is our wonderful good and friendly ally in the middeleast there are elements within its government and business world who which for us nothing but death--and I do not trust the good ones to be able to fully restrain the bad ones.

Bush says we need to fight the war on terror on the terrorists ground rather than ours. That is a smart strategic choice, but a primary tactic of that strategy would be to first secure our borders and ports. That has not happened. Furthermore, Bush is adament taht he will turn the ports over to a middle eastern country. Why?

Could it be that the threat is not as great as this administration would have us believe?

Is it that this administration is so inept and venal that it will disregard the threat for its own dark reasons?

Is it that this administration is so used to talking out of both sides of its mouth, unchallenged by a gullible public and compliant press, that it grown so arrogant that it can say and do what it wishes, regardless the implications or consequences?

Personally, I think the threat of terror was already there and the terrorists scored a tactical victory on September 11 and this administration in the coldest most cynical way latched on to the event to further their own agendae while keeping the press and citizens in line and unquestioning through "Elevated Terror Alerts" and wag the dog warfare.

I think Bush's stance on the ports issue is prima facie proof that when it suits his purposes he waves the flag of terrorism but that, in reality, there is no greater threat than taht which has always been there and behind the scenes it is business as usual.

[FMII]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif Jez! I didn't realize how stupid I was when I cast my vote for "Georgie". He continually, amazes me. He continues to fall on his sward continously. This is certainly like letting the "Fox into the hen house" isn't it? I have to omit. I am beginning to think our pres is almost brain dead.
All the best
FCMII

[shãybare]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
Turning the ports over to anyone other than "American companies" is a bad idea. Yes, the teamsters and unions run the ports. But that too is a problem in itself. Whoever runs the port will run it to suit their own best interest rather than that of the American people. Money talks big and that is what will decide who wins.

[Naturist Mark]

A little more information (http://villagevoice.com/news/0609,ridgeway,72286,2.html) about the United Arab Emirates - the people George calls our "allies" in the war on terror because they let our military use their ports and airfields (but they've quadrupled the fees).
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>WASHINGTON, D.C.—No matter what Bush and his supporters say, there is indisputable evidence of tight connections between the United Arab Emirates and leadership of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The country is the center of financial activity in the Persian Gulf, and has next to no laws controlling money laundering.Two of the hijackers came from the UAE and hijacker money was laundered through the UAE. The details are spelled out in documents in the government's case against Moussaoui. [/list]
Ok, but they are cooperating now, right? Well, not exactly. They still won't turn over financial records, and continue to harbor known al Qaeda suspects. Further, they remain in contact with bin Laden and the Taliban's Sheik Omar, which our CIA knows, but apparently can't do anything about. In fact the 911 commission learned (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm) from CIA director George Tenent that we had located bin Laden at one point but "had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the (UAE) royal family would have been wiped out".

In the US, when the oligarchs want to meet on the sly they go quail hunting in Texas. In the mid-east they go falconing in Afghanistan. <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The ties with bin Laden and the Taliban reach far back into the '90s. Prominent Persian Gulf officials, including members of the UAE royal family, and businessmen would fly to Kandahar on UAE and private jets for hunting expeditions, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. In addition to ranking UAE ministers, these parties included Saudi big wigs like Prince Turki, the former Saudi intelligence minister who now is ambassador to the U.S.

General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, was quoted on MSNBC in September, 2003 saying, "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.''

Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar joined the hunting parties, and there are suspicions Al Qaeda and Taliban personnel are smuggled out on returning flights. [/list]

The company that the Bush Administration has approved taking over 6 of the largest commercial ports and two military ports is owned by the UAE government - meaning the same Royal family members that hob nob with bin Laden.

But ... but ... Scotty McClellen says that DPW would not be involved in port security - that remains the job of Homeland Security.

Not exactly Scotty boy.

Customs currently only inspects about 5 percent of the incoming cargo at US ports, the remainder remains the responsibility of the port management. So only 95% of our port security will be in the hands of bin Laden's hunting buddies. Whew! Had me worried for a moment or two.

-Mark

[UnitedNudists]

Better to have the ports in foreign hands and out of the hands of Bush/Cheney who will use them to stage another terror attack on the USA.

[shomymojo]

I also think the States should have more of a say about what is going to happen in their backyards too...

[usmc1]

AP is reporting documentation that White House cut a secret deal with Arab company for our Ports.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html

I guess this means the Global War on Terrorism is over and we won, huh? You think?

[shomymojo]

President Bush is way out on a limb on this issue...and he seems determined to saw it off...he is going to go down hard on this one...no one seems to like this except him...

[Naturist Mark]

Look what was on ebay!

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
I also think the States should have more of a say about what is going to happen in their backyards too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you don't mean other countries... ???

Qikdraw

[nudeM]

As of this posting, the company who is going to take control of the ports, has decided to hold off until Congress has a chance to deal with the issue at hand. They are willing to give Congress time to explain the situation to the people, first.

I think we are somewhat jumping the gun, but I still have a lot of questions myself. I understand the company in question was given 'strict' guidelines, as well as a thorough 'back ground' check, before the contract was awarded.

We'll have to wait and see. That's all we can do. The Feds are going to do whatever they want anyway, regardless of how the American feel about it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[Jason Heh]

Are they hiring?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I understand the company in question was given 'strict' guidelines, as well as a thorough 'back ground' check, before the contract was awarded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, but the people who are on the CFIUS board that "unanimously" approved the sale, including board chairman John Snow and board member Donald Rumsfeld (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220009) said they didn't know anything about the deal until it hit the media.

Say what?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Richard Perle last night on CBS:

BORGER: Here's one explanation. The president and his senior staff couldn't brief Congress because they didn't know. That's because the panel that makes these calls, the Committee on Foreign Investments, is not run by the high-level Cabinet members listed on its Web site. Those guys usually rubber-stamp decisions made by staffers. Richard Perle is a Bush ally who sat on the panel during the Reagan years.

Mr. RICHARD PERLE (Former Assistant Secretary of Defense): The committee almost never met. And when it deliberated, which it did from time to time, it was usually at a pretty low bureaucratic level.

BORGER: So, is it a joke?

Mr. PERLE: I think it's a bit of a joke if we were serious about scrutinizing foreign ownership and foreign control, particularly since 9/11.
[/list]
-Mark

[mountainbird]

If Bush thinks its OK and safe to guard our ports with Arabs....Maybe he should guard the White House and his own family to them also.

[shãybare]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
Good point, mountainbird. I am waiting to hear what more info can be given for this atrocity.

[UnitedNudists]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
President Bush is way out on a limb on this issue...and he seems determined to saw it off...he is going to go down hard on this one...no one seems to like this except him... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

President Clinton admires this country and I always trust his judgment so it may be that this is a good decision after all. And didn't Jimmy Carter also say he supported Bush on this?


http://www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18919&c...gory=arabianbusiness (http://www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18919&ca%20tegory=arabianbusiness)

[P.J.]

I remain a staunch conservative
If accused of being among the Radical Religious Right, I'm not at all offended (and I hope that this doesn't startle anyone).
I support the current Global War on Terrorism.
Now the confusing part of current events is the President's support of allowing a company out of the UAE to control our ports.
At this moment, I suspect that someone is asleep behind the wheel.
WAKE UP MR.PRESIDENT!!!

[jon71]

Anyone who takes the war on terrorism seriously (like me) should favor having Bush impeached. This is another failure of his on top of an unending string of failures.

[fred950]

Has anyone thought that this whole sorry state of affairs also points out why something as important as national security must NEVER be entrusted to a private for-profit company? I feel this is just another example of how short- sighted the neo-cons 'leadership' has been. No one has ever given me any explaination of just how a private contractor is going to 'save' tax payers so much as a plug nickle over the long run.

For profit companies need a positive bottom line. And just where does that positive bottom line come from? The sucker taxpayers, of course. Now that it comes out nobody in the White House is paying attention, What other forms of shady dealings is going on?


BTW, How did Haliburton let the port security contract slip though thier sticky fingers? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif

[usmc1]

Susan Collins - GOP Senator > Coast Guard said ixnay!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=25051&mode=nested&order=0

[UnitedNudists]

Getting the ports out of the hands of Cheney and Bush is a good thing. And Bill Clinton is working behind the scenes to make that happen too. Smart guy that Bill Clinton.


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnitedNudists:
Getting the ports out of the hands of Cheney and Bush is a good thing. And Bill Clinton is working behind the scenes to make that happen too. Smart guy that Bill Clinton.


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, and a kick-butt savvy wife too. Anyone who can make the conservatoids twitch, stammer and drool as she does has got to be Dah Bomb!

[nacktman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anyone who can make the conservatriods twitch, stammer and drool as she does has got to be Dah Bomb! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually usmc, that's their normal state.
But she does help increase the twitching, stammering and drooling now doesn't she. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Back to topic: It is bad enough that privately owned foreign companies control operations at many US ports, but a foreign government controlled company (UAE owns about half of DP World) is unacceptable. No other Government on earth would think of letting another control its ports ... wars have resulted from less.
So, who else needs PROOF that the junta in Washington now is not the government of the United States?
Who needs else PROOF that it is nothing more than a criminal cabal intent on self service and destroying the very nation?

Lobotomy line forms to the right ...

[Sauna]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Have you ever noticed that the famous free trade is one-way traffic. It is always out of USA never in.

[UnitedNudists]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Back to topic: It is bad enough that privately owned foreign companies control operations at many US ports, but a foreign government controlled company (UAE owns about half of DP World) is unacceptable. No other Government on earth would think of letting another control its ports ... wars have resulted from less.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The UAE company is taking over from a British company that controlled US ports. I'd rather trust the UAE then Tony Blair lapdog of Bush using the ports to sneak in WMD to fake another attack on the US.

[nacktman]

United ...

First it is a private company, not a company controlled by a government that DP World is attempting to buy.

Second it is not a British company it is a Netherlands company.

Please get it right first.

[Naturist Mark]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

[krcNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
United ...

First it is a private company, not a company controlled by a government that DP World is attempting to buy.

Second it is not a British company it is a Netherlands company.

Please get it right first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go back and re read the post. United is quoting someone else then putting in his two cents. I agree with United.

[nacktman]

krcNY they were quoting me.

I agree getting the shrub and his lackys hands off our ports is a good thing.

The error in the "2-cents worth" was assuming that it was a British company DPWorld was attempting to buy, it is not, it is a Netherlands company, a privately owned one.

DPWorld is about half owned by the UAE GOVERNMENT.

I was talking about no OTHER government would think of letting another control its ports.

But since we have no government only a criminal cabal occupying the white house they are pushing for the deal to go through ... Damn the Torpedoes!

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Second it is not a British company it is a Netherlands company.

Please get it right first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't resist dropping in to this thread, which I KNEW Nacktman would be active in, to see what sort of pseudo-facts he would be peddling here.

According to P&O's own Web site, they have always been a British company, beginning with a royal charter back in the early 19th century, and today chaired by a life peer. Here's the site if anyone wants to check themselves:

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207389&_...prtl&_schema=POGPRTL (http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207389&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL)

I haven't seen anything that says they're Dutch owned, but would be interested in seeing your source, Nacktman.

As to whether the deal is a security threat, even Mother Jones has published a piece that thinks there's a better way to address such issues than to kill the deal completely. That analysis is certainly much more reasonable and realistic than the Chicken Littles who tear around screaming about "the shrub trying to destroy the country." Check it out:

http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2006/02/prote...m_port_security.html (http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2006/02/protectionism_port_security.html)

Just trying to keep you on your toes, Nacktman. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Trailscout]

Tim,

I thank you for your insightful link. I agree that we can come up with a plan that makes every side think they won.

Later on we can find a way to give American companies a chance to get a bid in on these contracts instead of handing them out as political favors.

And the favor was a big one! UAE agreed to provide us a staging area near the Straits of Hormuz, where we can exercise the option to invade Iran or put a stranglehold on all Persian Gulf oil.

I am dead set against UAE controlling anything of ours, but if we play the game, we can let them think that they won the ports contract (for now).

[usmc1]

The rats are jumping ship skipper!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...006030701229_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701229_pf.html)

House Agrees To Vote On Ports
Showdown With President Likely
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A01
Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.