Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

They're sellin' our ports, maw!Follow

#1 Feb 22 2006 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.port22feb22,0,755371.story?coll=bal-business-indepth wrote:
President Bush said yesterday that he would veto any effort by Congress to stop a United Arab Emirates company from taking over some operations at the port of Baltimore and five other major U.S. seaports, offering his administration's most emphatic defense of a deal that leaders in both parties are working to block.

Under fire from a rapidly increasing number of lawmakers - including the top two Republicans in Congress - Bush said politicians were sending "mixed messages" to America's international trading partners by questioning the deal.




I'm curious on the takes of the various factions here about this issue.

All I hear from the left is "I can't believe they would sell our ports to shady countries!"

All I hear from the right is "I can't believe they would think that our president would jeopordize the securty of this country!"



I mean, The Ports are really just a bunch of waterside buisness parks are they not? Why would the government have any real say in waht the companies that run out of there do with their buisnesses.

on the other hand.. our boy Bush has openly declared that he will do his first veto ever of anyone trying to stop it from happening... Now I know that America stands to gain like 9 Billion dollars from this deal, so we can see where his motivations lie..

however, should we be concerned about this for security reasons? These are our most historic and strategic ports. I kinda see a problem with port security butting heads with the people running the companies.. but i am not aware of how jurisdictions lie with foreign comapnies working out of American ports..

Another thing I'm hearing is complaints that the ports should have gone to American companies, which s an argument that i find totally irrelevant, since buisness is buisness, and money has no boundaries. The big question is; is there a price on security?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Feb 22 2006 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
"What could possibly go wrong?"
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3 Feb 22 2006 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
As long as the Coast Gaurd and regular port security, customs, etc are still in charge of security and have the authority to do their job, I fail to see the problem. It's not like we're giving them the land and declaring it land under their authority, similar to an embassy.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#4 Feb 22 2006 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
From what I understand, security is hardly even relevant in this deal. No matter who controls the port from a business standpoint, we still only randomly check like 5% of the cargo that comes in. If we want to vamp up port security, then fine, but I'm in agreement with Bush on this one: It's very hard to justify control of these ports by foreign companies out of, say, Britain or Denmark, but excluding businesses out of other countries just because it's Arab.

Yes, 2 of the hijackers came from UAE. But the background checks on this from the CIA, Coast Guard, and other U.S. agencies has apparently been extremely thorough and rigorous. UAE is a pretty clear ally with us on terrorism, and I think they are an Arab country making great strides to build relations with the West. We would be fools not to seize the opportunity.
#5 Feb 22 2006 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Yes, while it would seem that the UAE government is our ally, that is so say nothing of the comanies working within that countries borders..

for instance, reading this 2 year old Forbes article made me think http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0412/086.html

Quote:
Outside of free zones foreigners are not permitted to own a majority of a business in Dubai, and local partners aren't subject to export-control laws. These realities leave bureaucrats in Washington pessimistic. "Whenever there are third-party transactions, there is only so much you can do to follow the path of the transaction," admits a U.S. Treasury official.




Colombia is an important ally in the war against drugs, Mexico is an important ally against illegal immigration. But much of our illegal drug supply and immigrant population come from Colombia and Mexico, y'know?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#6 Feb 22 2006 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
The bottom line is dollars not security. I think this is another example of Bush's cronism.

clicky

Some interesting tidbits about UAE:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

Also some of these ports that UAE will be managing ship military supplies to Iraq.

Are we giving the fox keys to the hen house?

I think this adminsitration is and has always been motivated by greed. I don't really think they are concerned about our security.







Edited, Wed Feb 22 10:51:06 2006 by Spirish
#7 Feb 22 2006 at 10:56 AM Rating: Decent
That Dubai company is going for more than just those six ports. They're also going for P&O ports, the shipping company that now operates in those six ports. (A 6.3 billion USD deal)

It's an economic move, just the same as the Chinese companies that control operations several European ports.


Quote:
Yes, while it would seem that the UAE government is our ally, that is so say nothing of the comanies working within that countries borders..

for instance, reading this 2 year old Forbes article made me think http://www.forbes.com/free_forbe...12/086.html

Quote:

Outside of free zones foreigners are not permitted to own a majority of a business in Dubai, and local partners aren't subject to export-control laws. These realities leave bureaucrats in Washington pessimistic. "Whenever there are third-party transactions, there is only so much you can do to follow the path of the transaction," admits a U.S. Treasury official.

Colombia is an important ally in the war against drugs, Mexico is an important ally against illegal immigration. But much of our illegal drug supply and immigrant population come from Colombia and Mexico, y'know?


True, but if this deal doesn't make it, that might also affect the offer on P&O ports by that Dubai company. I doubt that the UAE government is going to be pleased with that. Might make them rethink their position.


As for security, ports operators don't really have that much of a say in it. At this moment, there are American customs officers operating in most ports of departure around the world checking the exports to the US. Most of those ports had to invest in extra security measures, like scanners (mobile and other) and restrictions on who can access the quays, radioactivity detectors should be installed in port of Antwerp soon on every container terminal I believe. But as Jawbox said, it is physically impossible to check every single container.
#8 Feb 22 2006 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
***
2,740 posts
Jawbox wrote
Quote:
It's very hard to justify control of these ports by foreign companies out of, say, Britain or Denmark, but excluding businesses out of other countries just because it's Arab.



I get what you're saying, but I disagree. Personally, I have no problem at all having the administration show some sort of racism or whatever you want to call it towards Arabs and Arab companies, because they're the ones killing our troops and taking down buildings. The company(ies) have links to al qaeda, I don't understand why we would let them onto our soil, and I don't understand the President's decision here.

Meh.
#9 Feb 22 2006 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
9 billion doesn't make a gigantic impact in our national budget; can't imagine such a sum would force a policy showdown.

I haven't read deep enough into the issue, but I can't figure out what the administration is up to. It's one thing if Bush & Co are actively pursuing a Republican agenda -- at least that, one can understand. It's another when the executive in power takes a stand against both parties to do something that neither group seems to want.

Arguably that's the way politics ought to happen (the parties be damned, we will lead this country as we must), but I'm too grounded in reality to believe this is the case. Nobody in DC works on principle.

I become uneasy when I can't figure out the intentions of our leaders.
#10 Feb 22 2006 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
Wingchild wrote:
I haven't read deep enough into the issue, but I can't figure out what the administration is up to. It's one thing if Bush & Co are actively pursuing a Republican agenda -- at least that, one can understand. It's another when the executive in power takes a stand against both parties to do something that neither group seems to want.

Don't forget, this is an election year. The Democrats are strongly opposed to this because they are waking up to the fact that they are perceived as weak on defense. The Republicans who are opposed to this are saying, "Hey wait, defense and security is our turf!"

But it seems to me that Bush is bashed for beating up muslims and arabs with his military might, and then gets bashed for trying to support a diplomatic and financial relationship with an Arab country. In my view, the huge benefits outweigh the relatively small risk. (Just think how intensely these ports would be scrutinized if this goes through.)

#11 Feb 22 2006 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wingchild wrote:
Arguably that's the way politics ought to happen (the parties be damned, we will lead this country as we must), but I'm too grounded in reality to believe this is the case. Nobody in DC works on principle.

I become uneasy when I can't figure out the intentions of our leaders.
Off the cuff, I'd guess that it's already nearing the 2nd quarter of 2006 and a capitulation to Congress now would pretty much mark the beginning of Bush's lame duck period. Something Bush wants to put off for as long as possible.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Feb 22 2006 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I think the man has been unopposed in any real sense and has surrounded himself with yes-men (you, too, Condi) for so long, he can't believe Congress would actually disagree with him.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Feb 22 2006 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Condaleeza Rice has a *****.

It is bigger than yours.



____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#14 Feb 22 2006 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
I have to say that it is about economics rather than the money from the deal. If we block the winning bidder based on the country the company is located in, then it is a form of protectionism. We have learned the hard way from trail and error, that protectionism hurts our economy, and very badly. Bush is saying that it should not matter where the company is from since they won the bid.

Another way to look at is that if we start blocking business from friendly Mid East nations simply because of the country they are based in, then they would be within their rights to do the same back to our companies and that would hurt more us a lot more than we would gain from blocking theirs.

This is just a snap judgment and nimby-ism.
#15 Feb 22 2006 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
i woundered how long it was going to take the Asylum to post a thread on this threat.

im a repub, and have been for a very long time. i voted for GW for his first and second term, i am now drastically regretting my last vote for him.

on this action alone. im sorry, but there is no good viable reason to sell our ports to any country least of all countries that are KNWON to support and harbor terrorists.

im more then slightly pissed about this, and today GW has said he will VETO any legal action to stop the sale.

i really hope several of the states and cities that controll and own the ports now will revoke their lease to the feds before the sale is finnalized to block the sale that way.
#16 Feb 22 2006 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
Condaleeza Rice has a *****.

It is bigger than yours.





Of this, I have no doubt.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17 Feb 22 2006 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

UPDATE: Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn’t even find out about the sale until last weekend?


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/21/rumsfeld-not-consulted/


That man is such a liar. I still get an erection of the video where he was on a news show doing an interview and he said "I have never said Imminent Threat in relationship to Iraq ever in any form!" then the host of the show brought up 4-6 quotes of Rumsfeld where he says "Iraq is an imminent threat.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#18 Feb 22 2006 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
**
830 posts
This whole thing is starting to seem fishy to me.

Bush said he was for the sale, (to the point of vetoing any legislation blocking it, which I think would be his first veto since becoming president) then today he turns around and says he didn't know about it. How does that work?

Isn't Dubai Ports World owned or controlled by the UAE government? It's a different proposal if it's a private company versus a government owned or controlled company. If it is, that would be putting a foreign government in charge of some of our ports.

Apparently the deal was approved by John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, who used to be the CEO of USX Rail. I just read another article saying that a big chunk of CSX was bought by the Carlisle Group. Is the Carlisle Group connected to Dubai Ports World?

Aren't Bush's dad and Bin Laden's dad in the Carlisle Group together? Isn't it a little strange that we're fighting a very expensive war right now with Bin Laden and his people when both dads are possibly making huge amounts of money prosecuting the war?

Why is a high-ranking official in Dubai Ports World being put in charge of the US Maritime Administration at the same time this deal is going through?

I don't pretend to have answers to these questions, but something is just not adding up right here to me.
#19 Feb 22 2006 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
Bush said politicians were sending "mixed messages" to America's international trading partners by questioning the deal.

F'uck that "you're with us or you're against us" attitude that leads people to blind devotion and the vilification of war protesters.


also, f'uck the new swear filter.




Edited, Wed Feb 22 15:21:09 2006 by trickybeck
#20 Feb 22 2006 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
Like hiring Michael Jackson to be your nanny--Dave Letterman.


#21 Feb 22 2006 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Terrorists: Hey Bush boy, let's make another deal.

Bush: M'kay

Terrorists: You arrange a place for us to enter, and kill some Americans. In turn, you get more excuse to raise hell in our countries while getting another "9/11 fever" boost in support you could use to follow through the destruction of your country's civil rights and democracy, securing your place as dictator of your new military police state.

Bush: And ya'll get to die for your Alla and get your 70-some odd virgins. It's a win/win situation! I'll veto anyone who tries to stop it, it'll be great!

Having anyone else in 2008 seems too good to be true. I can imagine:

"We regret to inform the American people, that presidential elections will be withheld this term until the war on terror is over. We have to stay the course!"

*BOOM*

See what happens when you don't obey?

*BOOM*

Dissent and the terrorists will get you. Resist our rule and our Diebold bank machines rob you of your money. You have no choice, this is the new America!
#22 Feb 23 2006 at 5:37 AM Rating: Default
**
836 posts
lol, Bush is at it again, what will happen this time? This presidency is like damn soap opera. I just hope this country is in one piece by the time the next election comes.

All I have to say is sit back and watch the show.

~~~~~~ Allakhazam for President~~~~~~

XD

Oh, yeah if the next president is like Bush, there will be no middle or lower class. Just the filthy *** rich Enron ****'s who steal people's money and get away with it. Everyone else will be left with no jobs, cause all the jobs will be outsourced to India. Basically, its gonna be like "Lost" minus the plane crash.

Edited, Thu Feb 23 05:43:19 2006 by kalaria
#23 Feb 23 2006 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Isn't Dubai Ports World owned or controlled by the UAE government?


yes, this buisnesses moving in are actually owned by the government of that country.


Also, our mayor (and I'm sure plenty others) are whole-heartedly trying to fight this, although methinks in vain.


Really I don;t see it as a "racial" issue. I don't know the full history of the relationship between this Dubai and the US. BAsed on everything I know.. it's most likey some greedy officials over there just trying to make a buck and improving their US relations by entering into this "deal" (even though it was sold by a British Co.)

Only problem is.... how much of waht goes on through that company is regulated as well as they should be? We seem to be putting alot of faith in these people...

They will have increased knowledge of any lacking security situation in these ports... and I'm SURE the people that they hire are not going to be put under as much scrutiny as they should be... I'm talking mega-background checks..

another matter is, ALREADY the regulation on the Port of Baltimore alone is pretty damn ******... All I hear about from there is smuggling operations and drug shipments and corrupt workers....
and I've personally dealt with the "Port Authority" cops... They're idiots, plain and simple. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust them to keep me secure as it is.... now this latest thing just seems like the icing on the tombstone.


we'll see... i just don;t want anymore morning commute incidents... as i drive a stones-throw from the Port everyday.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#24 Feb 23 2006 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Just the filthy *** rich Enron ****'s who steal people's money and get away with it.


You do realize there are legal actions going forward right now, don't you?

Probably not. Why would I even think so?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#25 Feb 23 2006 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent
Bush can do whatever the **** he wants at this point, he is the most hated man in america anyway.
#26 Feb 23 2006 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Samira, of course I know NOW legal action is taking place, look how long it took for something to happen, if these people didnt have all that money, their asses would have been locked up a long time ago. But money=power, and it rules the world. If you have money you can get away with anything, that enron **** happened years ago, it have taken 3 years just for action to take place. If it had been a person of a lesser class, they would have had his trial over in 6mnths tops, and he would have already been in jail. But, no since the people wear suits, and have millions they get to get away with stealing people's life savings and bankrupting a company. I bet all they will get is time in a minimum security prison with tennis courts, and ****, cause thats where they always send people with a **** load of money.

So, I know what I'm taking about, dont be blind and think our court system runs like a new car, cause it doesnt and probably never will. How much money you have shouldnt decide what punishment you get. The only time I see when money doesn't matter, is usually if a child gets killed, but hell even then if the murderer is hmmm lets say a cop, or someone with a high status its hard as hell to convict those ****'s cause they have "friends" in high places, and all they care about is money.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 387 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (387)