Protecting us from Terrorist attack?

The question that no one seems to be asking is why we have to have foreign companies running our ports in the first place? Bush always says something like "why can a company from the UK run our ports but not one from the United Arab Emirates?" Why do we need a foreign company doing it? Why can't we do it ourselves?

 

I give jr. high marks for consistency:

Vietman war: reading magazines
9/11: reading children's books
Katrina: enjoying some quality time at the ranch
Ports: Huh ?

I wonder who (all) really runs the white house ?
Corruption & kickbacks: Cheney
Neo-conism: Cheney

Are there any other cabinet posts ?

 

Now why did you have to bring Cheney into it? Along with the post asking why the U.S. can't manage its own ports, we're going to give someone the bright idea to have Haliburton do it :blink: Heck, they're doing such a good job in Iraq...aren't they? I'm sure this whole port thing would fit well into their portfolio and it appears to be a "no bid" situation which is perfect. This way, both "W" and the "big C" can probably make some change on the deal, although "W" will likely work it through dad...

 

Because that's the rules of corporatism and privatisation. Government = bad. Corporations = good. Therefore it's better for a corporation, even a foreign one, to run something than one's own government.

Of course, this all ignores the minor detail that the foreign corporation is owned by a foreign government... :blink:

 

Sorry, I interpreted your message to be directed at me (since I think I'm the only one taking the opposing side of the argument here).

 

I don't think these are no bid contracts. In fact, they aren't federal government contracts at all.

Here's how I understand the issue. The private company that was running these ports was for sale. It was a British company. It was sold to the highest bidder, which was a UAE company (and the fourth largest port management firm in the world). The runner up was a Singapore company which is actually larger than the UAE company. A government panel reviews these sales with "cabinet level" approval (Dept. of Homeland Security and Treasury, I think). The approval was given by the panel.

Who do the ports belong to? I don't think they belong to the federal government, but are owned by the states or local communities. Does anyone know if any are privately held? In any case, the Feds have always had a presence in the ports because of customs activity, and now because of federalized security measures that are just being implemented (like the drive through nuclear material detectors in place in the Port of Los Angeles .... but shhhh! don't tell anyone they are there!)

 

I waited awhile to jump in...didn't like a lot of the knee-jerk opinions. Wanted some of the details to come out. The instructor in the leadership class I just returned from said, JUST because something is legal or within policy does not make it the right thing to do.

THIS, currently, is not the RIGHT thing to do.

 

I don't know that it matters who runs the ports. AFAIK only about 6% of the cargo is inspected, all ships from almost any country can get into the port already. Just as all kinds of airplanes fly in from all over the world including most Arab countries. That being said I still don't think it's a good idea.

Wildkow

 

No posts lately on this thread . . . does that mean you people are done knee-jerking? Have you now learned that this was little more than poltitical grandstanding?

Here's something to chew on:

. . . proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Their bill would block companies owned by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operators. . . .
She [Senator Barbara Boxer. D-Ca] said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. . . .
But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials

13 of 14 Didn't Babs know?

 

Well Envy, I've been hearing as much outcry from the Republicans as the Democrats regarding this issue. Are you saying your boys are knee jerkingas well? And what about the MANDATORY 45 day review the law requires for this type of sale that was originally ignored? Then Bush threatening to veto any action by congress to review it, then a day later claiming to only have heard about it the previous weekend?

 

My licence plate says it all

 

I guess the part that scares me is that this whole thing was quickly approved by a group of people who worked for a company (I believe it is CES?) that was bought by this Dubai company last year. Since they will probably be going back to the Dubai Company after their stint in our government (yes, this is a revolving door problem), they will for their best interest find this whole thing perfectly acceptable.

In other words, the Dubai Company approved the purchase of our ports! :wacko:

And now they have 45 days to review and approve their purchase again! Note - The 45 days is just to have the same group of people review their original decision.

Do We Not See Anything Wrong with this concept?

Yeah, its good for Bush and his cronies, but I fail to see how this is good for the country.

Oh, and Jews need not apply for a job at those ports or supply any equipment. That is according to their own Government (and corporate) policies. Which I might add is against USA law, but they are a multinational corporation and don't need to obey USA laws.

Lisa

 

I don't know who you mean when you say “your boys.†I was accusing PriusChatters of kneejerking – but, I agree there is lots of kneejerkin' going on in Washington on both sides.

As you will notice, if you care to go back over my post on this thread, you will see that I did not take a stance one way or another on the sale . . . only anti-kneejerking. I thought the story from the LA Times quite telling on how hypocritical some politicians will become when there is the possibility of political gain to be had with election year posturing.

Do I think the sale should not go through? I don't know. Let's see what the investigations reveal.

Do I think a company owned by Dubai is the wrong choice to run the ports? Not because they are an “Arab†country I don't.

I think it quite telling that Dubai extends the hand of friendship and cooperation and allows the porting of US Navy ships and military in Dubai and the UAE, yet some US politicians are quick to backslap them with the insult that they are not worthy to be a corporate owner of the rights to manage the operations of some ports here in the USA. Operations . . . not security.

Humiliating one of our best allies in the Arab world is not a good policy. Why is it patently acceptable for a British company to run the ports, yet not Dubai?

Is Senator Boxer (D-Ca) actually saying Great Britain, Canada, Australia, or Japan are not worthy to run our port operations? How kneejerky is that??? :huh:

BOXER . . . TOUGH ON NATIONAL SECURITY!!!! Yet 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach are run by foreign-owned companies.
Funny thing . . . one of those companies, China Ocean Shipping Company ("Cosco") is a state-owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China. We don't have US Navy ships homeported in China. Noooo, they would rather ram a fighter jet into our P-3s and then hold it and the crew hostage. Yet we let them run some of our port terminals? Wth!

So far the most level headed player has been Dubai . . . on their own they said go ahead and do the extra 45 day investigation.

 

They'll get over it. Producing terrorists who highjack our airplanes and fly them in to our skyscrapers is humiliating to us and we're dealing with it somehow. I'll repeat the question I asked earlier: why should any foreign company run our ports? I don't think it's acceptable for anyone other than U.S. citizens to run our ports.

 

Allies come and go, can you guarantee UAE's friendliness is to stay for a decade?
I might be hesitant proclaiming UAE as a solid friend just on the premise of allowing our troops to be stationed on their territory and bowing to parts of our policies in the Middle East at this time. Is it OK to you that UAE doesn't recognize Isreal? What happened to Uzbekistan a solid "friend" of USA? US ran bases were closed unexpectedly to a chagrin of current administration that ultimately caused massive logistical headaches. The point is what happens with the lease when UAE becomes "unfriendly" for whatever reason? Does this matter or financial gains on that part of individual corporations that are involved at the moment are more important than a future security of our nation? BTW the racial component in this discussion is blown out of proportion to enhance arguments against the questioning of the whole deal and I've no problem with any UAE corporation taking over troubled GM or Hershey's etc. Everybody knows that multinationals don't give a damn about securities of any given state, they only care about satisfied shareholders. I don't think we have a clear transparency pertaining Dubai Ports and it's shareholders and we never will. What's next, leasing operational aspects of federal highways to Oman or leasing menagement of Pentagon and our military to Saudi Arabia?

Issues of national security ARE EXCLUSIONARY of any financial deals that may or may not profit private entities. IMHO a valid argument.

 

United Arab Emirates-owned DP World says it will transfer its operations of American ports to a U.S. "entity."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/por...rity/index.html

Haaaaaahhhh. I can see the future headlines already:

Democrat Party leaders accusing President Bush of masterminding the entire DP World/American Ports scandal as an elaborate ruse for the purchase of P&O's North America Operations by his cronies at Halliburton.

Whew, I crack myself up! :lol:

 

what's this?
I see RASH said it, and you have repeated it.
Try harder, your response cracks one up.

Dull partisan rethoric, nothing else. NOBODY other than right-wingers might care about your premonitions. I see you cladding a uniform and marching around your dinning table 10 times and finally resorting to a salvo through the window, proclaming yourself the next Nosterdamus. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Sorry to disappoint you dsunman. I first heard the news story on CNN.com. I didn't listen to Rush today, yesterday, last week, month, or year. I don't.

When I read the story and saw that Dubai Ports World would sell to a U.S. "entity." The word “entity' got me to wondering what U.S. “entity†would be capable of running the ports . . . since 80% of U.S. ports are controlled by foreign corporations. At first I thought maybe this would be some kind of ruse where DPW sets-up a dummy U.S. entity and sells the ports to them. Then I got to thinking what would cause the biggest political scandal. When I thought Halliburton I laughed so hard the iced-mocha I was drinking came out my nose.

I do crack me up.
You, on the other hand, if you can't find humor in that, I feel very sorry for you regarding your ultra-liberal affliction.