Dubai Ports World

[jfrenaye]

I may be the only person in the land that is supportive of Bush on this port deal.

Hear me out. We have had P&O running these ports for some time. They are a british company with outstanding reputation and so forth. They are bought by DPW. A UAE company that was formerly under british rule, who also has a goo reputation for port management. THis is a business merger--plain and simple!

If we do not like the idea of them running our ports, then cancel the contracts and find someone else. I imagine it woudl be difficult.

Now we are OK with a London company running the ports but not a Dubai company for what reason? London seems to have a greater concentration of terrorist cells than Dubai. The reason is that money was filtered in the UAE for 9-11 and that two of the terrorists were from there. Well, hello, money was filtered here in the US. We gave them drivers licenses, bank accounts, and airplane tickets! They probably bought their box cutters at one of our Wallmarts!

I say bring on the Dubai people and let them know we have reservations and require them to bring up the port security standards. We certainly don't have the money and if anyone does it is Dubai. Force them to do it if they want our business-they do, and they will. Monitor it and voila--a gaping loophole has now been closed.

[weblet]

In what I've read about this, these people have nothing to do with security. In essence they simply rent space at the port. Security is still handled by US interests.

Did I miss something?

[REDJIM]

John: No, No, and NO!

I don't care HOW efficient this new management organization is, they are located in one of the ABSOLUTELY most unstabile regions of the globe. They've "admitted" that to do this deal, they've had to raise billions in the Arab World to seal the contract. Just how much of these funds are loosened from the pockets of terrorist supporters? Arab guys my age(aren't they all Sultans?)love America because of the oil profits we've surrendered to the Middle East. The kids they've spawned from multiple wives and concubines, are gangstas. A true tool of Satan. In consort with their Mullas, these offspring are dedicated to a mission to DESTROY America.

And you're all ready to put the six most important ports on the North American Coastline into their hands? Monroe is rolling over in his grave. Polk and Jackson and Sam Houston are screaming a goastly keen!

As a Lincoln/TR Republican, I'm insulted by the blase attitude our current, wimpish President has for these carefully orchestrated assaults on the USA.

ALL OF US NEED TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORY BOOKS!

And my apologies to you, John. My rumination is not meant to be an attack on your well wishes for this deal. It's my sincere observations on how BAD GUYS plot to take advantage of people who have been raised to do the right thing. That's us.

[jfrenaye]

No offense taken for sure. But again, the USCG is responsible for the security of the ports and if I accept your argument that they love us because of the oil profits we've surrendered, doesn't it make sense that this might just be another way for them to make money off of us?

I just don't think you kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs!

[Eileen Sellers]

I don't know why we have any foreign control of our ports. What sense does that make? Do we (USA) own/control the ports in other countries? Honestly, I never knew that our ports were run by another country. Personally, I think that practice has to stop. As the leases come up they don't get renewed and we take total control of our ports.

[jfrenaye]

Eileen--yes, but we are a global economy at this point. I am not sure if we control any foreign ports--I suspect not. But that is pobably because we are not competitive in the global marketplace.

Do we control banking in foreign lands--you bet. Who controls the auto industry in the US? I venture to say it is not Ford, GM, or Chrysler--but rather Honda, Nissan, or Toyota.

It even extends to travel. What is the ownership of Carlson Wagonlit Travel--yes the franchise arm is owned by Carlson Companies, but the corporate arm is (and I am not sure of percentages) sizeably controlled by the French firm Accor.

My point is that I think this may be an opportunity to shore up our defenses. These guys want the job and we ought to make them pay for the privilege. Award the contract, and make THEM pay for the port security to OUR satisfaction. We always squawk about not having the money or resources to do it...well now, we have the deep pockets. They don't get any deeper than Dubai!

[Eileen Sellers]

My point is that I think this may be an opportunity to shore up our defenses.

We need to take this opportunity to shore up our defenses and make the decision that it is not wise to have foreign countries controling our ports. We can find a different way to be competitive in the global marketplace.

[Eileen Sellers]

I heard on the news this weekend that the Chineese run the California ports.

If ever there was a program that needs to get dumped it is this one. It doesn't matter who started it but does matter who ends it.

If there is so much money in port operation, then we need it as much if not more than a foreign country. We can use the money for security and employment right here at home.

We have a huge problem with illegal drugs coming into the country, and now it is no surprise how it gets here.


No foreign country should be operating our airports, shipping ports, car ports, borders or any other port on entry into this country. It is irresponsible of our government to even consider it.

[BYOFT]

Hear, hear, Eileen!

I agree with you absolutely.

[jfrenaye]

No foreign country should be operating our airports, shipping ports, car ports, borders or any other port on entry into this country. It is irresponsible of our government to even consider it.

And our own government has been doing such a wondeful job securing our own airports??

If we are going to be a nation that opens her arms to all, then it ought to be in business as well. We have huge interests in other nations ourselves. A true global economy.

Look at the TSA--what a ragmuffin outfit that it. The posterchild of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. With the rank and file--you guessed it--mostly foreign--with a few seniors tossed in for balance.

I was in SMF a while back and forgot to take my Palm Pilot out of my pocket. OK not a threat to anyone, but the whole checkpoint looked like an ad for AARP. The old man that had to wand me down made me miss my flight (ok so I was late to begin with) but if I had a knife and wanted to do something...1--he could never catch me and 2--his bifocals probably could not describe me. So who are we fooling.

This needs to be an all or nothing proposition--and I can live with either way. But don't sit there and stonewall a business transaction based on nationality and heresay, when we do not abide by those same rules and wants when hiring our own "protectors".

[Ned]

I voted no, but I think my reasons are different than most.

I don't think it's in our best interests to have our ports run by a company not US owned. Our ports are critical to our economy and our security, and I want someone operating the ports whose best interests are our best interests. I don't believe an Arab country, or a European country or a South Amercian country should be managing our ports.

I will also tell you that P&O didn't run the Port of Philadelphia all that well, in my opinion. There is much room for improvement. Enough improvement is needed that even before this change of ownership was a issue, the Port Authority here was already looking at changing port management firms. They are definitely going to rebid now.

Port security is the responsibility of both the port itself and the US Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is an important enough part of port security that virtually all major US ports have Coast Guard stations (as they are called) in them. Philadelphia, for example, a huge cargo, petroleum, and chemical port is no exception, having a large Coast Guard station located on the Delaware River, just south of Center-City.

On-water security of ships and cargo is the responsibility of the Coast Guard. Cargo security, at dockside and once off-loaded, is the responsibility of the port manager. At this point our port security at both our salt water and fresh water ports is totally inadequate. Some would call our cargo security a joke. I would, because it is a joke. There is no TSA equivalent for our water ports, thank goodness, or it might be worse than it is. There are no updated substantial uniform rules for water port security since 9/11. The so-called improved security rules we have at our water ports is window dressing.

Security needs to be drastically improved and I want a company in charge whose owners, not just workers, live here, and have a life stake in how well it's done, not just a financial one.

[sardine]

REDJIM and Eileen Sellers make excellent points! This Republican is longing for a Ronald Regan to rise again and fight against foreign companies taking over security-sensitive areas of our nation. Allowing foreign investment in ports, utilities (which could soon include nuclear power plants), etc., has me wanting to shout to our leaders, "Have you lost your minds?!!!"

And yes, Jonn, the TSA is a joke. Imagine my surprise during a recent security encounter in the international terminal at Boston's Logan International Airport when an Arab woman who was wearing a religious head scarf (I don't know what it is called, and I'm too tired to look it up.) checked my I.D.!!!! Yes, this is the same Logan Airport where Arabs who hijacked airplanes on 9/11 passed through "airport security" on that most tragic and horrible day that no one will ever forget!!

Lest I be accused of being politically incorrect (oh, horrors!) in stating my views bluntly, I have nothing against the Arab woman who verified my I.D., and she was a lovely person, respectful and likeable, if the truth be known; she could be as loyal to the U.S.A. as I am, but the wounds of 9/11 are deep and raw; they will be for many years to come.

After passing though airport security that evening I asked my husband if we had slipped through a worm hole landing in a parallel universe that only looked like the one that we were torn from; the leaders and many Americans in this parallel universe have gone berserk.

I wanna go home! :(

[nobody122]

I say let the UAE run our ports, or the Chinese, or the Saudis, hell, even the Italian and French would do a better job than most American companies.

Its interesting how self-righteous Americans are. I have been lucky enough to live all over the world and see all the stereotypes of Americans are actually true by reading this thread. I live in Prague, and my best friends here (we practically spend more time together than apart) are French, Israeli and Saudi--and you know what--we have no problem with each other because we realize we are all HUMAN and don't buy into the crap being preached by our respective governments.

I don't know how many of you have been to Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, or any other part of the UAE area (well Bahrain doesn't really count), but there are more UK citizens in Dubai than natives! I have no problem being a white person walking around the UAE--I have NEVER had any problems, neither has anyone else I know of.

And sardine I am extremely offended and embarassed by your comment. People like you are the reason that Americans have a horrible reputation. We should not limit people just because of where they are from--your ancestors were immigrants at some point to. Look at everyplace that is more tolerant than the US and see how much happier the population is, less crime, less terrorism, ect.

What about American companies owning things abroad? Why should America be allowed to do things that other countries aren't? Just putting another rift between the American population and the rest of the world and it just shows arrogance and ignorance.

I totally agree with John--if somebody can run it more efficiently, then economically it makes 100% logical sense--why keep throwing money at a problem instead of allowing it to be fixed?

[sardine]

Nobody122, please read ALL of my comment. You missed my point entirely! You are the type of person who gives us a bad rep. BTW, Lenay Lenape Tribe of the Delaware Indians is a significant part of my ancestry. FYI, I spent many years in the field of International Documentation. I have met people from all points on the globe and I was very well recieved.

[Eileen Sellers]

Why should America be allowed to do things that other countries aren't?

America does not operate the shipping ports in any foreign country.

This isn't about trading with or doing business a foreign country. Operating our ports of entry into this country belongs squarely in the hands of our country. It's our land, our soil, it belongs to us. Paid for with the blood of our citizens past and present and future. It is paid for with our taxes, manned with our citizens, and subject only to our likes or dislikes and hired or fired as easily as we wish. Our ports are part of our country. They cannot be operated by anyone other than the US and her citizens. And I hope they make a lot of money because we need it.

As far as I'm concerned every elected official in Washington in now out of a job until they fix this and fast. Come election time we will clean house accordingly.
This issue will bring out the AMERICAN vote not just Democrats or Republicans.


Our government has done something completely irrational and irresponsible and they have to fix it. And it can't happen soon enough. And they better start talking about how they are going to fix it. American citizens are angry and shocked.

[jfrenaye]

I am looking to see what foreign entities the US controls, but if you want to see some other interesting facts.....

In 1998, ICTS International N.V. made a strategic decision to focus on the US market. The following year, it acquired Huntleigh USA Corp., which provides airline passenger screening services at 47 US airports, including all the international aviation gateways in the USA.

In order to implement this decision, the ICTS International N.V. Group recently completed a restructuring process that touched on strategic issues, manpower, management and additional areas. The ICTS International N.V. management team that founded the company and built it to become a recognized world leader in aviation security was replaced with a younger generation of managers. Most members of the new management team have risen through the ranks at ICTS International N.V., and have been supplemented by highly skilled executives who have joined the company. This new management team has taken the lead, and is now steering the ICTS International N.V. Group towards regaining a leading position in aviation security in Europe and worldwide, and establishing it as an industry leader in its new areas of activity, with the goal of attaining new heights of professionalism and performance.

As part of the above restructuring process, an additional fully-owned subsidiary has been established to host the new homeland security activities: I-SEC Homeland Security (I-SEC HLS) (www.icts-hls.com).

In keeping with ICTS International N.V.’s objective of significantly expanding its presence in the USA, in January 1999 the company acquired the Huntleigh Corporation, which at the time of the acquisition was the fifth largest provider of airline passenger screening services in the United States. The addition of this subsidiary placed ICTS International N.V. in a unique position as a worldwide service provider to the aviation industry, with the ability to provide its clients with a broad spectrum of services spanning the Atlantic.

Based in St. Louis, Huntleigh operates at 36 US airports, including most of the international aviation gateways in the USA.

The services provided by ICTS/Huntleigh USA include security agents, charter flights security screening, skycap and wheelchair services, baggage Handling, Ticket Verification Agents, guards, ramp agents, passenger service agents, baggage Services Agents, Crew transport, baggage x-ray, aircraft search, Vendor Security Screening, and more.

But, perhaps the most disturbing part of these excerpts is this one:

ICTS International N.V.

Biesbosch 225
1181 JC Amstelveen
The Netherlands

Tel:* 31 20 347 1077*
Fax: 31 20 643 2412

Their Management and BOD links are all disabled on the main site and the subsidiary sites, but the principle is an Israeli. The company is registered in the Netherlands, and they are responsiblie for a lot of sh!t here in the good ole US.


Here is a link to an unsubstantiated site that is an interesting read:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html

And the above excepts can be found on the ICTS site:
http://www.icts-int.com/

So, why all the squawking? Is it because Israel is a "good friend" and the management of the US Airports is fine and dandy?

I agree that we OUGHT to take control of our borders--we OUGHT to close them and take a hard line approach. But what I think we OUGHT to do is diametrically opposed to the tennents of the documents that founded this nation back in 1776!

This is a catch 22. I still say that they are OUR borders and no matter who secures them (nationality) they OUGHT to play by our rules, and if we need to patch the loopholes at the expense of the UAE, go for it.

[Jeanie821]

John - have you forgotten the events of September 11th, 2001?

[jfrenaye]

Certainly not, but if a UAE company is qualified and can meet our standards better than we can ourselves, why not allow them to go forward? We already were allowing a foreign entity to manage the ports as it were with P&O.

Jeanie--are you suggesting that because two of the terrorists were from the UAE that this deal be squashed? If so, the logic follows that the US has no business running the ports because of Timothy McVeigh.

My point is that we are a global economy and this was a business merger from one owner (P&O a British Company--which probably employs a signig=ficant number of UAE citizens) and Dubai Ports (a UAE company). We have long said the ports are a loophole, so now we have an opportuity to patch the hole. If they want to play, they need to play by our rules.

Give them a list of what they need to do to insure a secure port and then have them escrow money in order for us to fund the inspection of these security initiatives by the Coast Guard, Customs, etc.

If they want to play bad enough, they will ante up. If not, then it will be in control of the US. But then again, is that the answer? As much as I hate to say it, I do not think we are capable of policing ourselves.

We have made a bunch of waves with Homeland Security, but like any wave, it will turn to a ripple and eventually disappear until somethign catastrophic creates it again all over. Do you really feel any safer now than pre-911 while flying? I don't--save for the reinforced cockpit doors which should have been there all along and was merely a cost saving measure by the airlines.

Do you really think that we are vigilant and unable to be struck again? I do not. This 911 plot was hatched a long time ago and the bombing in 92(?) of the WTC was a dry run I believe. It is only a matter of time before we once again are sitting there with our pants around our ankles going"how the hell did that happen?"

[bini8104]

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said




This is copied and pasted from an interview. It certainly brings up some very interesting points. Oh and by the way.....most Arabs don't really like Americans.

[jfrenaye]

Would the same thing not be possible with P&O?

[jfrenaye]

A commentary from Mort Kondracke:

The bipartisan uproar over a Middle East company's management of U.S. port facilities demonstrates how steeped American politicians are in Arabophobia.


Before they knew anything about the company, Dubai Ports World, or about security responsibilities at U.S. ports, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and affected states shouted a "No!" that has implications far beyond the case at hand.


Domestically, it shows how politically weak President Bush has become that GOP leaders like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) and Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) leaped to distance themselves from Bush on the port incident.


That's surely the result of setbacks ranging from continuing troubles in Iraq to continuing discord over National Security Agency terrorist surveillance to unfavorable Hurricane Katrina post-mortems to the flap over Vice President Cheney's tardy reporting of his hunting accident.


Democrats are always ready to pounce when they sense that Bush is vulnerable, and the ports issue was a golden opportunity for them to get to Bush's right on the issue of fighting terrorism, even if it conflicts with their mantra that America should use its "soft power" to win friends around the world.


The international implications of the port controversy are even greater. The knee-jerk reaction of politicians tells the Muslim world that no matter what the facts of a situation might be, the default attitude of this country toward them is suspicious and hostile.


Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England testified Thursday that "in the long war we face (against terrorism), it's important that we strengthen the bonds of friendship and security with allies in the Arab world.


"The terrorists," he added, "want us to become paranoid and distrustful. It's important that we become the opposite."


It's true that the Bush administration was politically tone-deaf in failing to realize that an Arab firm's takeover of operations at six U.S. ports could be politically radioactive.


Because all the executive agencies involved in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States found no security problems with the transfer, the consensus was that the deal would fly politically and no one notified Bush, Treasury Secretary John Snow or anyone in Congress.


When the word got out — possibly stimulated by a U.S. firm that was outbid by Dubai Ports World — it took members of Congress by surprise and elicited an immediate xenophobic response.


Frist, Hastert and other Republicans vowed to introduce legislation to block the transfer. Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) proposed legislation blocking any company owned by a foreign government from operating a U.S. port.


In a reaction more befitting a talk show host than a member of Congress, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., posted a letter to Bush on a right-wing Web site reading "Dear Mr. President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO but HELL NO!"


The media has played its part by leaving the impression that Dubai World Ports would "own" U.S. ports. Actually, the company would own the company that loads and off-loads cargo at ports that are publicly owned.


Bush complicated the political situation by threatening to veto any legislation blocking or delaying the transfer, which played into his reputation of "disdain for outside views in general and congressional views in particular," as Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.) put it.


Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., did rationality a service by calling an immediate hearing on the transfer, at which representatives of the State, Defense and Treasury departments defended their decision.


On the negative side, it's true that two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, that UAE banks allowed Al Qaeda funds to be transferred internationally, and that UAE ports served as a transit point for illicit nuclear materials.


However, since Sept. 11, UAE has become what Warner called a "stalwart" U.S. ally that has cracked down on terrorist financing and nuclear proliferation and serves as the largest single base for U.S. warships outside the United States.


U.S. politicians, instead of pausing to evaluate one Arab country versus another, assumed than any such country is a security risk.


Asked to evaluate the stereotype that UAE is culturally equivalent to Saudi Arabia or other reactionary countries, Mideast scholar Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me "it's a crock."


"The UAE is a wide-open, free-market place that often scandalizes conservative Arabs. It has 200 nightclubs. Women walk the streets in miniskirts right along others who are fully covered. It's the freest, most open place in the Mideast. Closed-minded people go to Saudi Arabia. Open-minded people go to Dubai."


A close Congressional look at the port deal might turn up evidence of security dangers, but so far experts say that it will in no way affect the responsibilities of the Coast Guard, Customs Service or pre-cleared U.S. port workers.


The flap also may result in needed upgrades in U.S. port security, which is apparently better than often portrayed by critics, but still needs more funding than it gets.


But both Democrats and Republicans need to really think about the effect that rejection of the port deal could have on U.S.-Arab relations in the midst of an incipient "clash of civilizations."


Enemies of the United States are using every means to fuel violent enmity between the West and the Muslim world. It's what the worldwide cartoon riots were all about and outrageous charges by Iran's president that the United States and Israel were behind the bombing of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines in Iraq.


Democrats, in particular, constantly say that the United States should rely on "soft power" — diplomacy, trade and cultural relations — rather than military force to expand American influence. Blocking the port deal would certainly undermine that power.


This is a moment of truth for the United States. Can its leaders overcome prejudices and petty politics to make a rational judgment? Or will small-mindedness help America's mortal enemies?

[Eileen Sellers]

We got rid of the British from Boston once before and we can do it again, and clean house in Washington at the same time.


In 1773 Samuel Adams (a good beer too.) told a gathering at Old South Meeting House that it "could do nothing more to preserve the liberties of America" and that remark was the signal for what is known as The Boston Tea Party.

[jfrenaye]

Eileen--are you sure the Dubai Port World would allow a tea party in Boston Harbour?

(Sorry, could not resist)

[Jeanie821]

Originally posted by jfrenaye@Feb 28 2006, 01:15 PM
Jeanie--are you suggesting that because two of the terrorists were from the UAE that this deal be squashed? If so, the logic follows that the US has no business running the ports because of Timothy McVeigh.
21378


That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the U.S. maintain control of any and all entry points into the country - airports, seaports, border patrol, all entry points. To hand off control to another country, and I don't care who they are, would be foolhardy.

[Eileen Sellers]

What in the box at the port? Tea or ... that other leafy stuff.

Out with all of them...we operate our own ports, period.

[thefareguru]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@Feb 28 2006, 07:20 AM
America does not operate the shipping ports in any foreign country.


Wrong! There are many parts of port operation. Here in Vancouver, the real power is not with the Port Authority, but with the ILWU. If they walk out, the port is shut down - absolutely. No management, and no law can force them back to work. If you've got perishable stuff sitting on the dock and need to get it, just TRY to cross the picket line.

And where is the HQ of the ILWU?

Executive Offices
1188 Franklin Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109-6800


Here is their position on Dubai World:
ILWU Position Paper on Dubai Port World (http://www.ilwu.org/press/2006/upload/ILWU_portsecurity_rls%2002-23-06%20FINAL.pdf)

Do I have an opinion on this? No, it's none of my business.

Edit: created the link (JWF)

[Eileen Sellers]

I think you meant to post the link to the Canadian ILWU

http://www.ilwu.ca/

America does not operate Canadian Port..the government of Canada and the citizens of Canada would highly object, and rightfully so.

[Ned]

Apparently my last post in this topic was wiped out during the upgrade so I'll post it again.

The parent company of Dubai Ports World, Ports, (Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC)), at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel. PCZC is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai, which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

When directly questioned by Michael Fruend of the Jerusalem Post via telephone, Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel freely admitted, "Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced."

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

On at least three separate occasions last year, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

Dubai Ports World with its participation in the boycott of Israel has show itself to be a racist, antisemitic corporation violating US law on a daily basis. It has no business being allowed to run any US port. No foreign company which consistently violates US statutes and thumbs its nose at the US government should be permitted to operate
a business in the US.

I agree with these immortal words of action, "Throw the bums out!"

[Eileen Sellers]

Who cares what UAE does with ISrael. They don't belong on our soil operating our ports, not for any reason. It's not their fault they are here, it is the fault of our govenment. Our government has done something very wrong and they have to fix it. It's not just killing the deal with UAE, we have to terminate or not renew any contract with any foreign country who lease port operations in this country.

It is beyond politics. It in simply Un-American. And it is Un-Acceptable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eileen Sellers@Mar 2 2006, 10:25 PM
Who cares what UAE does with ISrael. They don't belong on our soil operating our ports, not for any reason. It's not their fault they are here, it is the fault of our govenment. Our government has done something very wrong and they have to fix it. It's not just killing the deal with UAE, we have to terminate or not renew any contract with any foreign country who lease port operations in this country.

It is beyond politics. It in simply Un-American. And it is Un-Acceptable.
21439

I love your passion Eileen. I also agree that they don't belong running our ports. It's that Bush cronyism again and who you know in the Bush White House, and that Bush "I'm right which means you're wrong and unpatriotic." Name calling that's what the Republicans do best....no....wait....that's about the only thing the Republicans do well....no....wait....there is one thing they do even better, steal from the American people!

[nobody122]

Doesn't anybody realize that it is the OWNERSHIP and not the SECURITY/EMPLOYEES/MANAGEMENT that is changing? Ok, Chrysler is owned by Germans, big deal. Were Chrysler employees replaced by Germans? NO! Plus like John has said, security would still be run by the US government.

Everyone seems to be taking an isolationist/protectionist stand point. Just look around you and think of other countries that have had the same type of view--Iran comes to mind. They have great resources (generally) but are economically and socially constricted because of the same reasons you are arguing for.

So I take it all but myself, John and a couple others would have no problem with NATIONALISING all companies that have anything to do with security? Imagine having to fly a single government owned airline, driving a government produced car, eating government produced food. Damn, I thought the Eastern Bloc fell a long time ago.

[Eileen Sellers]

Doesn't anybody realize that it is the OWNERSHIP and not the SECURITY/EMPLOYEES/MANAGEMENT that is changing?

We get it perfectly. The answer is no.

[Anita Dunham-Potter]

Originally posted by jfrenaye@Feb 24 2006, 12:44 PM
I may be the only person in the land that is supportive of Bush on this port deal.

Hear me out. We have had P&O running these ports for some time. They are a british company with outstanding reputation and so forth. They are bought by DPW. A UAE company that was formerly under british rule, who also has a goo reputation for port management.* THis is a business merger--plain and simple!

If we do not like the idea of them running our ports, then cancel the contracts and find someone else. I imagine it woudl be difficult.

Now we are OK with a London company running the ports but not a Dubai company for what reason?* London seems to have a greater concentration of terrorist cells than Dubai. The reason is that money was filtered in the UAE for 9-11 and that two of the terrorists were from there.* Well, hello, money was filtered here in the US. We gave them drivers licenses, bank accounts, and airplane tickets!* They probably bought their box cutters at one of our Wallmarts!

I say bring on the Dubai people and let them know we have reservations and require them to bring up the port security standards.* We certainly don't have the money and if anyone does it is Dubai. Force them to do it if they want our business-they do, and they will. Monitor it and voila--a gaping loophole has now been closed.
21161


I've never supported the Bushman, but this one time I think he's right. So, I am with you John. This company runs ports all over the world. I think so many people are being "hasty" about this. The NY Times had a really good article on this last Sunday and it went into detail about how and what this company would do. Nothing with security at all. Again, I think Ned hit the sore spot in one of his posts above and that's why this thing has spun out of control in the media. The bloviators win again.

Anita

[Ned]

Originally posted by Anita Dunham-Potter@Mar 4 2006, 05:39 PM
I've never supported the Bushman, but this one time I think he's right.* So, I am with you John.* This company runs ports all over the world.* I think so many people are being "hasty" about this.* The NY Times had a really good article on this last Sunday and it went into detail about how and what this company would do.* Nothing with security at all.* Again, I think Ned hit the sore spot in one of his posts above and that's why this thing has spun out of control in the media.* The bloviators win again.

Anita
21530

This company under it's old owners (UK) ran ports all over the world. Here in Philadelphia, even before this thing blew up they were considering dumping them because they just weren't doing a great job.

Regardless, I don't care if they're running 90% or the world's ports there are some things I want run by US companies in this country. This is one of them. Furthermore, if they are going to continue to violate US law then that's another reason I don't want them.

Sorry Anita, but this company should be dumped from running our ports!

[REDJIM]

Originally posted by Ned@Mar 2 2006, 06:27 PM
Apparently my last post in this topic was wiped out during the upgrade so I'll post it again.

The parent company of Dubai Ports World, Ports, (Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC)), at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel.* PCZC is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai, which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

When directly questioned by Michael Fruend of the Jerusalem Post via telephone, Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel freely admitted, "Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced."

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

On at least three separate occasions last year, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

Dubai Ports World with its participation in the boycott of Israel has show itself to be a racist, antisemitic corporation violating US law on a daily basis.* It has no business being allowed to run any US port.* No foreign company which consistently violates US statutes and thumbs its nose at the US government should be permitted to operate
a business in the US.

I agree with these immortal words of action, "Throw the bums out!"
21436


I love this forum because it allows passion to be expressed. And...the passion spoken here is truly logical too. What a great marriage.

Ned, I'm all with you on this thread, and Eileen also.

Americans tend to think that the potentates in the Middle East are fractured little third world countries searching for a nationalistic vision; when in reality, these "nations" are a collective religious oligarchy intent on enslaving every other peoples of the World to Moslem.

Please forget the fact that Mohammad was a direct descendent of a Jewish father, and Jewery steadfastly built western culture...The politicos in the Arab Middle East today are ALL children of Saladin and embrace that psychotic warrior's warped concept of religion.

It's too bad that the current Federal administration has ignored history to promote wealth generation for the fewest. They're playing an ignorant, and a weak hand, and America is The Pot.

Open the borders and the harbors and stand back...we're all destined to be slaves.

[Eileen Sellers]

I don't care if they're running 90% or the world's ports there are some things I want run by US companies in this country. This is one of them.

Ned, I would be willing to take it one step further. Not only US Companies, but the employees of that company working on the ports would have to be US Citizens. That would go for airports as well.

[jfrenaye]

I have to note that the Tripso poll is running nose for nose with every other poll out there!

[trojan]

I wish there was a realistic way for American-only companies to run all points of entry-related entities. Unfortunately, it's too late, baby.

If we are to truly get serious about enforcing "moral" statutes against offending nations, such as the UAE vis-a-vis Israel, we need to stop trading entirely with Red China. There is not a a bigger abuser of human rights in the world, and there is not a bigger nation which so utterly and completely ignores world trading and currency law.

The best alternative we have is to beef up security to a degree unknown since WW II. If we really mean it, we need to appropriate hundreds and hundreds of billions in unpgarading human and technological assets. We need to build-in humongous delays in the shipment and people moving within our nation. Tell me again the boarding process to get on El-Al? Two+ hours guaranteed?? A twenty-fold increase in the examination of incoming cargo? That'll be the day, folks.

Short of this, it's all whistling past the graveyard.

[Eileen Sellers]

I wish there was a realistic way for American-only companies to run all points of entry-related entities. Unfortunately, it's too late, baby....

...it's all whistling past the graveyard.

I wasn't considering the impact on any other country. It is wholly for our own safety that we would implement such a rule. We can't whistle past The World Trade Center, it is our newest graveyard.

In the past America might have been able to use trade on our soil for various reasons, those reasons cannot override our national security. We'll keep the money and stay safe at the same time. It has to change.

Security at our shipping ports, airports and borders must be run by US citizens and US companies.

Mayor Daley (CHicago) is asking the legislature to consider leasing out the airports. Well, thats ok with me, providing there is a stipulation that the company getting the lease is a US company and those employees that will involved with the airport and it's management will all be US citizens. If that isn't going to be the case, then the lease idea can go in the trash.

[vacationagent]

The republican administration is selling our country to the highest bidder in the name of capitalism.

[Eileen Sellers]

It's not likely that Mayor Daley would be mistaken for a Republican.


This business of outsourcing jobs has now hit home. It has been going on for many administrations. It doesn't matter what administration started it. It does matter which adminstration stops it.

Those who want to stay in office, and those who want to be in office, will stand up and publicly announce their decision to fix this once and for all.