Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Just why do you get such ideas?

The ports truely can't be - besides Chrysler and Trader Joe - the only company etc which is foreign owned in the USA.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But I think some think the Arabs will come in with all Arab employees, etc. and can route terrorists through unnoticed that way.

0 Replies

I dont know if this has been mentioned,but the operation of those ports was in foreign hands before now.
They were operated by a British firm,and that firm got bought out by a firm from the UAE.

Also,NO American firms bid on the contract.
If American firms dont bid,then they cany buy.

Having said that,I dont think its a good idea to allow this to happen.
I think that Bush is wrong on this.

0 Replies

Well like I said MM, this may be the most bipartisan crisis we've had in a decade. Smile

I still haven't picked a side and can see the logic of both. But I am beginning to understand why we can't refuse the UAE without it being just because they're Arab. And I don't think that will win us any friends in the Arab world.

To Walter: The last time I looked, after American owned stuff in the USA, the Netherlands had the next biggest chunk but the Germans, French, British, Danish, Norwegians, Japan etc. etc. etc. all have significant chunks of American properties. I believe the Danes have the biggest chunk of the American ports, as well as the biggest chunk of ports around the world, but I could be wrong about that.

I have been wrong. Sometimes I think I'm wrong when I'm right too.

In other words, I honestly don't know yet.

0 Replies

Btw: P&O will be delisted next month. The timetable is for shareholders to receive their money by March 16.

0 Replies

Oh, and MM, if I heard it right today, ALL American ports are foreign owned. Americans don't own a one of them.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company.

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
"While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave's selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role."

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
"Dave's decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future."

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.

Source

0 Replies

One thing I have noticed.
While I share the concerns the left has about this idea (this time),I have to wonder if it had been awarded as a "no bid" contract,would the left then be screaming that it wasnt fair because nobody was allowed to bid?

0 Replies

If the company has a terrorist record then I agree that it is risky to use them, but if they don't then I have to agree with others who say that we can't not use them merely because it is an Arabic company.

Talk about strange bed fellows, I think I am siding with Bush on this. Got to go rinse out my mouth now.

0 Replies

One day soon we may see WMD shipped into our ports. Being as it is, and will remain, impossible to check the contents of every container, it matters little who owns the ports. I'm glad so many are making such a fuss over the issue, though, because it will be tough for anyone to deny the fact that Bush is going to bat for the Arabs.

Since some of us believe he's been doing so for a while now ( Idea

): Bush's potential VETO, and even the threat thereof, lend support to that perspective. If banning the UAE from taking over would tick off Arabs; what effect do you suppose Bush's insistence on letting it go through will have?

I think Bush is dead right on this one.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I think Bush is dead right on this one.

If only that were true. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

You ol' Bush apologist, you.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

You ol' Bush apologist, you.

Gustav-- You went out with someone last night, and didn't come home.

I was sad.

0 Replies

90 pages in 19 days!!?? Shocked

Anyway, here's the latest lowdown on that "swing [..] back to support for The President, his Administration, and its actions"...

Code:

 

BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS, DEVELOPMENT 





           FOX    NBC/WSJ CNN/Gallup   Pew  AP/Ipsos Time Gallup ABC/WaPo



Feb 06                                                -14

Feb 06     - 3               -17       -12    -17          -13

Jan 06     -10     -15                                -14          -14

Jan 06     - 7               -11       -16    -19          -10     - 6

Dec 05                       -15                           -10     - 5

Dec 05     - 9     -16       -13       -16    -15          - 9

Nov 05     - 6                                        -12  -19     -21

Nov 05     -17     -19       -23       -19    -24          -15     -19

Oct 05     -10               -15/13    -12    -22          -15

Oct 05     -11     -15       -19       -18    -19 

Sep 05     - 2               - 5

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I dont know if this has been mentioned,but the operation of those ports was in foreign hands before now.
They were operated by a British firm,and that firm got bought out by a firm from the UAE.

Also,NO American firms bid on the contract.
If American firms dont bid,then they cany buy.

Having said that,I dont think its a good idea to allow this to happen.
I think that Bush is wrong on this.

Not exactly true.

The British firm was a privately owned company, while the Dubai firm is STATE OWNED!!! That is a BIG DIFFERENCE that not even the stupid Senator from NY, Clinton, has mentioned.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The British firm was a privately owned company, while the Dubai firm is STATE OWNED!!! .

Additional, it wasn't British anymore but mostly in Norwegian hands.

'State owned' can't be something very suspecious, since quite a few US companies in foreign hands have owners where the mother companies are (at least partly) by shares in some state's ownership as well.

0 Replies

"'State owned' can't be something very suspecious, "

Of course they can be suspecious especially given the State concerned here supported the existance of Al Quida prior to 9-11, have questionable banking policies that seem to support the financing of terrorism and clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Of course they can be suspecious especially given the State concerned here supported the existance of Al Quida prior to 9-11, have questionable banking policies that seem to support the financing of terrorism and clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

And that's the case with the UAE? Do you have any sources, woiyo?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Of course they can be suspecious especially given the State concerned here supported the existance of Al Quida prior to 9-11, have questionable banking policies that seem to support the financing of terrorism and clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

And that's the case with the UAE? Do you have any sources, woiyo?

Apparently, you have been sleeping...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22303-2002Feb16?language=printer

"Exempt from international reporting requirements for financial transactions, gold is a favored commodity in laundering money from drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorist activities, U.S. officials said. In addition, Dubai, one of seven sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, has one of the world's largest and least regulated gold markets, making it an ideal place to hide.

Dubai is also one of the region's most open banking centers and is the commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates, one of three countries that maintained diplomatic relations with the Taliban until shortly after Sept. 11. Sitting at a strategic crossroad of the Persian Gulf, South Asia and Africa, Dubai has long been a financial hub for Islamic militant groups. Much of the $500,000 used to fund the Sept. 11 attacks came through Dubai, investigators believe.

"All roads lead to Dubai when it comes to money. Everyone did business there," said Patrick Jost, who until last year was a senior financial enforcement officer in the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. "

0 Replies

Hmm, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the twqo other of those three countries.

Ehem, bad terroristic no-no's for the USA as well, I suppose?

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know