posted on February 20, 2006 12:17:56 AM
She also says "If You (me) had brain you would take it out and play with it."
Irked - are you some long lost family member of mine or something? First I find out your wife and my mother have the same former occupation, and back surgery history and now I find out this? My step used to say that all the time.
Mine is... If you had an original thought, it would die of loneliness.
Seriously though - Most of our ports are not owned by US corporations but they are MANAGED by US based companies and they are run by the US unions.
It's not as if business will stop 5 times a day for prayer call.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 20, 2006 12:18 AM ]
posted on February 20, 2006 01:26:18 AM
Need I remind everyone that Fox Network is owned by Australian businessman Rupert Murdock. Correction: US citizen Rupert Murdock (he was too right wing to remain in Aussie).
These furriners are taking over the USA! Next thing you know some Dutchmen will be buying Manhatten for some beads and trinkets!!!
posted on February 20, 2006 01:54:16 AM
You mean that our nations great source of inadvertant humor is not US owned? Say it ain't so.
So Agit - Are his Brit outlets as ridiculously conservative as well?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 20, 2006 11:01:32 AM
Fenix, I was wondering same thing about long lost relatives, could be, was told as a child I was found in turnip patch and my wife was told she was found in a cabbage patch so we bonded well. Kinda gaseous. Heck me and my wife also have the same birthday but not year.
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
posted on February 20, 2006 11:15:05 AMSeriously though - Most of our ports are not owned by US corporations but they are MANAGED by US based companies and they are run by the US unions.
Two exceptions are the Port of Houston (Tx), owned by the city of Houston & the Port of Galveston (Tx) owned by the city of Galvston.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 20, 2006 02:27:40 PM
Heard about an hour ago on news it looks like it is a done deal, they even showed Chertoff (however you spell his name) saying something about it not being a security risk. UHHHHHH do ya think? I dun no----
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
posted on February 20, 2006 02:33:27 PM
Irked - do you believe that any of the politicians that were trying to make a big deal of it actually believed they could kill the purchase of a British company by an UAE company or do you think thet knew it was a done deal but just wanted to get their name and face in the press?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 20, 2006 02:48:36 PMAre his Brit outlets as ridiculously conservative as well?
Yes, and no. However, in polite company, they're often referred to as the "gutter" press or tabloid tattlers. Most feature a busty blonde on page 3 - so you can guess who the intended audience is...
p.s. haven't lived in the UK since the 80s, but it hasn't changed much from what ex-pats tell me.
posted on February 21, 2006 05:17:12 AM
By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.
In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.
DUMBO's failures are good for the conservative republican lawmakers that are in trouble for reelection.
The lawmakers that voted with Bush for 5 years now can all of a sudden say (I AM AGAINST BUSH AND THIS PORT DEAL). The PHONY CON-servatives are just trying to draw attention away from their own voting record.
Hey America don't get SCREWED AGAIN by these CON-servative Liars. They will say anything and do anything to get reelected.
posted on February 21, 2006 12:57:29 PMhow the hell does our government have any right to decide whether or not a UAE company can buy a British company which is how this change of hands is going to take place.
fenix - while I agree that our government cannot decide which foreign company has the right to buy another foreign company, we can be fairly certain (without actually seeing the contract the British company entered into with the U.S.) that there are certain restrictions regarding the transfer of obligations under the agreement currently in place. In any business contract where one party provides services to another, typically one would need consent of the other before transferring obligations under the contract. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. would have to consent to the transfer of British obligations to the UAE company would not be out of the norm and in fact, would be expected.
posted on February 21, 2006 02:39:39 PM
I remember reading, years ago the Britain owned more property in the USA then any other country.
I can understand the reasoning behind selling it to the Arab's, They will invest money in it.
We don't, we let our ports fall into disrepair and the Brit's are cheaper then sh*t. They won't put a dime into the property they own.
Albany NY just took a piece of property away (in the courts) It was an old hotel in downtown Albany, it started to fall down and they wouldn't fix it. They started fining them several thousand dollars a day and shored up the place. Last I heard it was several hundred thou worth of fines.
BTW, I don't want to see any Security sensitive properties owned by any other nation.
posted on February 21, 2006 11:27:17 PM
As I understand it, the country of Dubai - one of 5? UAE countries bought the British company that manages these American ports. There is a big difference between foreign investments in the U.S. by private or publicly owned companies and investments by foreign NATIONALLY owned companies I should think. The country of Dubai has been accused of laundering money for Al Quada and supporting the Taliban. I cannot see how an UAE nation with such ties should be allowed to manage a U.S. sector which is so vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists.
buyhigh
posted on February 22, 2006 07:37:20 AM
"O.K. conservatives. Who are you going to support now Bush or Republicans lawmakers coming out against Bush"
I would support the anti-UAE Republicans, not Bush. I don't always follow party lines, I prefer to call them as I see them. This time, I call 'BULLSHPIT!'
I think this is a MUCH bigger issue than Bush & Co. Think it is. Bush's entire credibility revolves on the issue. Is there a huge and dangerous Arab-Muslim Anti-USA conspiracy or isn't there? You can't have it both ways. He's been hyping the Terrorist and anti-middle east sentiments for five years now, and suddenly there's a complete about-face. It stinks.
He's either an idiot or a liar. Neither option appeals to me.
Yes, I think we can block the sale if we darn well choose. It may not be politically pretty, but as the President says, they all hate us over there anyway, right?
I don't care what the Brits or Aussies own in this country. The likelihood of them ever declaring war on us is pretty slim.
You know what's REALLY interesting about this issue? I was listening to talk radio yesterday. It's the only issue I can ever remember when Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity and yes, even RUSH LIMBAUGH said the President was wrong. Now THAT'S a day to mark on your calendar!
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 22, 2006 07:51:39 AM
DrArcane
Well, it looks to me like we've finally found a subject most of us can agree on. Indeed, time to mark the calendars!
I am already in contact with my state rep and my congressman. Fortunately, I have access to them via the phone lines. Bombard your reps with emails if you have to.
It seems to me that WE should have the final say here. Not Bush.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on February 22, 2006 10:55:38 AM
I fax them. Can find their fax numbers on internet. I even fax the President at white house. I got a canned snail mail letter in reply to all of them. At least they will get a hard copy of your opinion that way. Think I will do my fax campaign again on this issue.
White House number I faxed is 202-246-2461 just in case you want to fax them. Or it was in September last time I faxed them.
**************
Can't touch this! uh huh, uh huh.
posted on February 23, 2006 11:00:23 AM
I know the points in the following article will be lost on sheepa but might clearify a few points on others.
Security and the Sale of Port Facilities: Facts and Recommendations
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and Alane Kochems
WebMemo #997
February 22, 2006 | |
The sale of facilities at six U.S ports by a British-based company to Dubai World Ports, a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, has raised concerns among many in the homeland security community. While a review of the facts suggest no apparent security issues, these concerns do reflect the importance of ensuring that the system created by Congress to review the sale of foreign investments in the United States is functioning properly. Congress should take 45 days to review the sale to Dubai World Ports. Because Congress has not closely reviewed this oversight process since 9/11, a brief delay is reasonable and warranted.
Security and Substance
Outsourcing Is Not the Issue. That the facilities at six U.S. ports will be foreign-owned is not significant. These facilities are already owned by a foreign company, the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company. Indeed, much of the maritime infrastructure (e.g., ships, containers, and facilitates) that supports U.S. seaborne trade and travel, which accounts for about 1/3 of U.S. GDP, is already foreign-owned. The globalization of maritime trade began decades ago, and this sale reflects the continuing globalization of a sector long-dominated by transnational firms.
Additionally, none of the infrastructure at these ports relates to military or national security facilities. The Defense Department controls the facilities that it uses to ship military goods.
Security Standards Will Not Change. Security standards for ports are governed by the International Shipping and Port Security (ISPS) Code, which is based on U.S. maritime laws adopted after 9/11. The same law applies to any company operating in the U.S., regardless of its origin.
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for overseeing the implementation of ISPS. Every U.S. port has a Coast Guard officer who is the Captain of the Port and is responsible for coordinating all port security. The Customs and Border Protection agency and the Coast Guard, not the owner of the port, conduct security screening on individuals and cargo that enter the port.
Not a Terrorist Gateway. Dubai World Ports is a holding company, and it will have little to do with the day-to-day management of these port facilities. Its ownership alone does not entitle its employees to access any classified or sensitive security information unless, as now, they meet the requirements of ISPS and U.S. law. Moreover, almost all of the employees at these facilities are U.S. citizens. As well, with over $6 billion invested, no company would want to see its facilities used by terrorists. Finally, terrorist tradecraft does not involve high-profile purchases of companies. Terrorism infiltration, like criminal smuggling, involves penetration by individuals. That is a challenge for any company.
The UAE Is an Ally. Since 9/11, the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S. That Dubai World Ports is owned by the UAE should reassure Americans.
The Review Process
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 created the Committee on Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Secretary of the Treasury heads CFIUS, and 11 other agencies participate in it, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security. The committee’s task is “to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States.” The process is designed to be non-partisan and non-political because these decisions should not be based on political considerations but solely on the merits of the transfer and appropriate security concerns. CFIUS reviewed the Dubai World Ports transaction and did not find any problems.
A Reasoned Approach
Congress certainly has the responsibility to ensure that the CIFUS process is being implemented as it intended. However, Because Congress has not taken the opportunity to review the CFIUS procedure since its implementation in 1988, it should take 45 days to review the Dubai World Ports deal. The country needs confidence in the procedures meant to ensure that foreign investment does not harm national security and this reasonable delay for review is the way to provide it.
posted on February 23, 2006 11:33:35 AM
I have to wonder if showing opposition to this deal isn't in reality just showing prejudism towards Arab's in general.
I believe that the President would be showing a prejudiced attitude towards Arab's if he didn't support this deal. During his entire Presidency he has shown that he is not prejudiced towards Arab's and he can't just go against that now.
I think that the bigger picture here is that our credibility is at stake with our friends in the middle east and if we now show prejudism towards Arab's then whatever credibility we have left will be gone with middle eastern countries that we are friends with now.
Is there a huge and dangerous Arab-Muslim Anti-USA conspiracy or isn't there?
Well sure there is but not from every Arab-Muslim country in the middle east.
You can't have it both ways. He's been hyping the Terrorist and anti-middle east sentiments for five years now,
That's right he has but only from certain countries in the middle east, not from all of them.
It may not be politically pretty, but as the President says, they all hate us over there anyway
By all you are assuming that he means all of the middle eastern countries when that just isn't true.
I don't care what the Brits or Aussies own in this country. The likelihood of them ever declaring war on us is pretty slim.
I wasn't aware that the UAE declared war or are about to declare war on us.
posted on February 23, 2006 01:14:52 PM
PI - you mean that maybe someone in the middle east is going to figure out that this country is full of #*!@ when it talks about a wish for positive relations with the middle east? WHich part do you think tipped them off? When we not only cut off funding but even ask for previously lent funds to be repaid by Palestine because didn't like the result of the decratic election process that we keep trying to push on them? Or was it our senate and congressional leaders throw hissy fits over an arab company taking over lease ports?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 01:42:44 PM
Pi, your responses to my answer seems to all hinge on one fallacy: That this is a politcal war. It's only a political war from the US point of view, the other side sees it as a holy war.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and yes, the UAE, and primarily Muslims, and hence at war with the west. Granted, not all of them are active participants, but they have chosen ther teams. It's only a matter of time until they are called on to step up to bat.
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 23, 2006 02:14:01 PM
Because some of us here object to this deal, that does not make us prejudiced against Arabs. I have friends and acquaintances whose families have originated from all over the middle east. I have not heard a one of them say that this is a good thing. On the contrary. They are saying it is a mistake. Granted, none of them are Arabs. When we go into our favorite restaurant which just happens to be Lebanese and hear the talk about the stupidity of this deal, that says a lot to me. These are Americans. AMERICAN companies should run AMERICAN sea ports. Not British companies, not companies based in the UAE. Especially not companies run by a foreign government. At the least the British company was publicly owned.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on February 23, 2006 03:18:45 PM
Colon's attempting to make it a race issue... lol. Just curious, what number is that on the Republican Talking Points Memo?
This isn't a racial issue and you know it. It is a security issue, that obviously should be addressed within our own borders. How can we expect to be truly secure if we sell ourselves out to someone else? I would be seriously reluctant to have privatized here within the USA, let alone outsource it to anyone else.
It is those anti-Americans who think our National Security should be outsourced. I support American labor, American security, and our American way of life and I am not willing to put it in anyone elses hands but our own.
posted on February 23, 2006 03:30:27 PM
Cheryl - don't you think that if there was a US company that was willing and able to do it they would have stepped up by now and made their presence known?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 03:57:49 PM
This is an issue of race. People don't want to admit it, but it is. It is also how capitalism is designed to work. Privatize everything and sell to the highest bidder. If you don't like the dirty underbelly of capitalism, that is a separate issue you will need to resolve on your own.
Remember, Arabs didn't attack us, religious fanatics did. The fact that they happened to be Arab is irrelevant unless you think they have a genetic predisposition for violent religious fanaticism.
posted on February 23, 2006 04:03:10 PM
"Remember, Arabs didn't attack us, religious fanatics did. The fact that they happened to be Arab is irrelevant unless you think they have a genetic predisposition for violent religious fanaticism."
Precisely.
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 23, 2006 04:15:36 PM
You may believe it is an issue of race, but for me it isn't and here is exactly why I believe this...
I have a problem with other countries, whether it be their government, religion, or businesses being used to secure this country. I do not have a problem if our government via the FBI, National Guard, and/or Homeland Security is responsible for protecting us provided they do it within the confines of this country. I could care less if an Arab, Hispanic, Jew, Indian, Russian, Brit, etc worked for any of those agencies as long as they received a thorough background check through our own system and was cleared. Outsourcing our security not only jeopardizes the security of America, but also doesn't give us the necessary checks and balances needed to make sure the job is done correctly. Who will be responsible if the ports are infiltrated? None of our public officials, that for sure. Try arresting someone in another country and holding them responsible here. It is simply another neocon plot to sell Americans out. It is bad enough the Bush Admin hasn't improved security in America, that we now have to make the little security we have obsolete.
It's not who Colin chooses to love, but rather that he found someone willing to accept him for who he is...
