We should unite with libs and take to the streets on Port issue!

[dilloduck]

Lazy? or are you just comfortable with just not knowing?

http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=1750

The acquisition of P&O by Dubai Ports World step by step
The controversy continues on the acquisition of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation by Dubai Ports World:

WASHINGTON - A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.

Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited “significant” security concerns over a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports.

LoBiondo said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and President Bush before state-owned Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The British company, the world’s fourth-largest ports company, runs major commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Bush administration earlier approved the deal, which has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

In the interest of putting a little more light on the subject I submit the following timeline:



January 10, 2006 DPW offers a bid for P&O.The previous bidder had been the Port Authority of Singapore, which has connections with the Chinese authorities. Whichever bidder prevailed a foreign operator would have control over port terminal operations in six American portsThis was not a new situation: the British company had controlled the terminal operations for many years.
January 26, 2006 After DPW ups the ante P&O management recommends acceptance of the offer.
February 12, 2006 The American press takes note of the acquisition. See also this interesting post on the change in Internet activity on subject.
February 13, 2006 P&O shareholders accept offer.
February 14, 2006 New York Senator Charles Schumer notices (apparently for first time) that New York port terminal operations are foreign-controlled.New York Post editorial condemns acquisition.
February 16, 2006 Seven U. S. Senators call for review of acquisition.
February 17, 2006 White House defends acquisition arrangement.Senators Menendez and Clinton announce plan to block sale.
February 18, 2006 First lawsuit to block acquisition filed.

To recap:

The port operations in question had been controlled by foreign companies for many years.
Government ownership in whole or part of large companies is a commonplace in most of the world. The United States is an outlier in this.
Whichever bidder prevailed (or, in fact, no change of ownership took place) a foreign-owned company would control the port terminal operations in question.
DPW is an international leader in port terminal operations.
There is no comparable U. S.-owned company.
Banning the operation of U. S. port terminal facilities by foreign-owned companies is flummery (not to mention paranoid and diseconomic).
I do think that there are legitimate security concerns whoever is responsible for port terminal operations: the terminal operator is in a distinctly advantageous position to evade security operations. Does DPW present a particular risk? I don’t see it.

In my view this situation should be managed not legislated. The risks should be identified and controls put in place to mitigate them. The controls should be reviewed systematically, thoroughly, and frequently to ensure their effectiveness.

This whole matter illustrates why we need more business managers in the Senate and many fewer lawyers and career politicians.

 

[trobinett]

dilloduck posts:

DPW is an international leader in port terminal operations.
There is no comparable U. S.-owned company.
Banning the operation of U. S. port terminal facilities by foreign-owned companies is flummery (not to mention paranoid and diseconomic).
I do think that there are legitimate security concerns whoever is responsible for port terminal operations: the terminal operator is in a distinctly advantageous position to evade security operations. Does DPW present a particular risk? I don’t see it.

In my view this situation should be managed not legislated. The risks should be identified and controls put in place to mitigate them. The controls should be reviewed systematically, thoroughly, and frequently to ensure their effectiveness.

This whole matter illustrates why we need more business managers in the Senate and many fewer lawyers and career politicians.

Thanks for a great set of posts dilloduck.

I think these last paragraph`s pretty much outline the way I`ve been looking at this issue.

Of course your mileage may vary.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

George Bush should hire a terrorist as a bodyguard, if he doesn't he's RAAAAAAAAAAAYCIST.

 

[OCA]

I already have.

No you haven't. Post some facts, economic facts on how this deal is to our advantage or shut the fuck up with your childish yes I did bullshit.

 

[OCA]

You can't educate people who are too stubborn to accept the facts.

Post some facts Dildo or forever hold your tongue on this subject.

FYI, posting some shit on the social habits of the people of Dubai has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

[OCA]

Damn--do you know how to use a google search engine? I'm not going to sit here a spoon feed an intentional moron.

Dildo you're sidestepping is growing tiresome, produce or hit another thread.

 

[dilloduck]

Bottom line and all logical thinking would tell you that if almost all terrorism eminates and begins with Islamists and originates in that area of the world then maybe its not so wise to give to control to some of your infrastructure to these people no matter how Americanized they may seem, these people are masters of deception. Anybody remember the picture of Atta partying at clubs and drinking buds even though his brand if Islam strictly forbids it?

Also i'm still waiting on these facts of how this is better economically for us than if we give the contract to an American company? Any of you anti homeland security types care to tackle this?

I have never claimed that this was better economically better for anyone. Don't shove words in my mouth and demand that I back em up.

 

[trobinett]

Dildo you're sidestepping is growing tiresome, produce or hit another thread.

I`m sorry, I don`t see dilloduck "sidestepping" the issue`s. He seem`s to be one, of only a few, that does post links to his point`s.

My suggestion, practice what you preach. :baby:

 

[dilloduck]

I'm serious. He can't just rush this shit through like this. Jimmy. call du. do a sticky thread coordinating with them.


Charge!

Coordinate with DU---I never thought I would live to see the day

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Coordinate with DU---I never thought I would live to see the day

That was when I thought libs were doing something right for once. Now I see they're on board with the destruction of america too, which I actually knew all along. They had to choose: destroy bush or destroy america. They chose destroy america, which their goal all along.

 

[dilloduck]

That was when I thought libs were doing something right for once. Now I see they're on board with the destruction of america too, which I actually knew all along. They had to choose: destroy bush or destroy america. They chose destroy america, which their goal all along.

oh ya---I knew it all along !! good one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

oh ya---I knew it all along !! good one.

I was actually suprised at schumer and some dems saying anything. Their instinct to be human kicked in, for a brief glorious moment.

 

[dilloduck]

I was actually suprised at schumer and some dems saying anything. Their instinct to be human kicked in, for a brief glorious moment.

BEING HUMAN ?? You kidding right. NATO has you outflanked on this one. The ONLY reason Schumer said one damn thing is to try to screw Bush.
AGAIN.
Any believing that Schumer or Clinton care about national security is absurd. Link to me to eveidence that these bozos are anywhere near strong on national security.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

BEING HUMAN ?? You kidding right. NATO has you outflanked on this one. The ONLY reason Schumer said one damn thing is to try to screw Bush.
AGAIN.
Any believing that Schumer or Clinton care about national security is absurd. Link to me to eveidence that these bozos are anywhere near strong on national security.

He'll back off soon. He'll be happy with more "rules in place" apparently like every other moron.

 

[dilloduck]

He'll back off soon. He'll be happy with more "rules in place" apparently like every other moron.

Exactly--they gotta move on to plan the next hysterical attack on the admin---besides--if he bitches too much Halliburton might wind up with the job. :rotflmao:

 

[OCA]

I have never claimed that this was better economically better for anyone. Don't shove words in my mouth and demand that I back em up.

Then what is your reason for foolishly endangering the security of America?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Exactly--they gotta move on to plan the next hysterical attack on the admin---besides--if he bitches too much Halliburton might wind up with the job. :rotflmao:

I know what you're doing. You're trying to get me to say all the bad anti "world bank" stuff.

 

[dilloduck]

Then what is your reason for foolishly endangering the security of America?

I have no intent in foolishly endangering the security of America. Wanna try to quote me accurately on something or do you just enjoy arguing with the lies you make up?

 

[OCA]

I`m sorry, I don`t see dilloduck "sidestepping" the issue`s. He seem`s to be one, of only a few, that does post links to his point`s.

My suggestion, practice what you preach. :baby:

Lol my "valid" and "extremely legitimate" reasons are all over the place in every publication in America and abroad, substantiated in a thousand different ways. Please don't claim that you have not seen anything factual that makes this an extremely bad deal for America, that would be disingenous, a lie perhaps.

Please show me where Dildo has demonstrated the benefits to America if this deal goes through.

 

[OCA]

I have no intent in foolishly endangering the security of America. Wanna try to quote me accurately on something or do you just enjoy arguing with the lies you make up?

Your position on this topic in and of itself endangers every single American. Care to explain why you take such a reckless stance on national security?