Cycloptichorn wrote:Isn't it a big deal that this company isn't an independent company; that it is owned by the State of UAE? It's nothing personal. I don't want any foreign Gov't controlling ANY land in America that isn't an embassy!
But, isn't there still some kind of a difference between a government and a state-owned company? Otherwise, what's the concern with DPW all about, while, for example, allowing Emirates to fly directly into New York?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ask yourself, why didn't Bush get on the other side of this one? To avoid pissing the UAE off? Does that really mesh with his attitudes and actions up to this date, when it comes to security issues?
Actually, I'm not too concerned if this doesn't mesh with his actions up to date, like e.g. the Iraq war.... I'm quite happy it doesn't mesh.
old europe wrote: Otherwise, what's the concern with DPW all about, while, for example, allowing Emirates to fly directly into New York?
Emirates overs a chauffeur drive to the airport, DPW nothing similar.
Right. I forgot that airports are not a security issue. State-owned companies, however, are.
<'Offers' that should have been
>
Quote:``Whatever happens in this United Arab Emirates deal, if we get more focus on port security, which some of us have been trying to do in the Congress for years, some good will come out of this.'' - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
``I think that near-hysteria about this is not warranted, particularly in light of the other major crises that we are facing throughout the world. the Iranian nuclear weapons issue is the greatest single threat we have faced since the end of the Cold War.'' - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Both of these gentlemen are correct.
watched too many news on TV this morning - even though the problem doesn't impact canada. just interested to see, what the neighbours are fighting over .
my guess is that the deal will go through in one way or another - eventually .
the way i see it from across the border, the opposition feels that the white house was trying to bypass (bamboozle) them , and simply wanted the deal rubberstamped.
no doubt, the upcoming mid-term elections also play a role .
on many occasions the american public has been asked 'to be vigilant' , to check was going on around them ... of course, now they have become too vigilant in the mind of the administration .
i think it is difficult - if not impossible - for ordinary citizens , to try and destinguish between : taliban, UAE, iran , iraq, insurgents , wahhabis , saudi arabia ... even many so called experts have been wrong on many occasions ; example : the iraqis did not throw flowers at the american troops .
one also has to wonder why the united states -
"the most powerful nation in the world" , from what i understand - cannot operate its own ports at this time .
since it is a requirement that u.s. airports must be operated by u.s. companies , why does the same not apply to u.s. ports . there is no doubt in my mind that secure ports are more vital to a nation than its airports. just compare the cargo volume of the two ; it'll give you some idea .
as has been said often and before : 'one always fights the last war - and forgets that things move on'.
just some thoughts on our neighbour's dilemma. hbg
BREAKING: Dubai Ports World Boycotts Israel
From this morning's Jerusalem Post:
The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The Jerusalem Post notes that "US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel." Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration. From the BBC, 5/11/02:
"The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel," said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.
"The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations."
The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.
The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.
The only multimodal inland terminal on the upper Rhine River (in Germersheim, Rhineland-Palantine, Germany) is owned by DPW.
Until now, no problems are known re. shipments via this port to and from Israel.
there was an interesting news item today :
the president of the israeli 'zim container line ' - one of the biggest in the world - has sent a letter to u.s. semators , endorsing the takeover of the u.s. ports by the UAE company. he praised the company for its great work and co-operation .
he seems to have overlooked the fact that israeli citizens are not allowed to set foot on the soil of the UAE .
one has to wonder how this discrepancy can be reconciled .
but there is the saying : 'money makes the world go round ... .
money seems to make for strange bedfellows (perhaps really not the strange , because 'business is businesss' ). hbg
Halliburton Eyed for Dubai Ports Deal
Newsmax | March 4 2006
Comment: This does nothing to improvethe situation, it makes it a million times worse - Halliburton is as corrupt as they come and run almost exclusively by the Globalists
The Bush administration is working behind the scenes to defuse the Dubai Ports World controversy by having the UAE-based firm team up with an American company.
According to the New York Daily News, which first reported the new White House strategy on Saturday, "one snag may be that sources say the U.S. company best equipped to partner with DP World is Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney."
But a role for Halliburton may not be such a "snag" after all, since the controversial company's involvement has already been endorsed by leading ports security critic, Sen. Charles Schumer.
"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told the Fox News Channel on Feb. 20.
Schumer explained that Democats hate Halliburton not for any security reasons, but because "they made large amounts of profit" from what he said were no-bid contracts in the Iraq war.
But if the company "can do the best job and they get the [ports] contract on the merits," Schumer said, "I'd pat them on the back."
The News said that any revamped deal "would have to be something along the lines of the Marine One contract, where British-and Italian-owned AgustaWestland had to take on Maryland-based Lockheed Martin to win the contract to build the president's helicopter last year."
But a better example may be Port of Long Beach, where the state-run China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] was finally allowed to operate two large terminals at the California port after it teamed up with an American firm.
In 1998, Congress blocked COSCO's initial bid to run a terminal at Long Beach that was formerly operated by the U.S. Navy.
In 2001, however, COSCO entered into a joint venture with Stevedoring Services of America to form a new company, Pacific Maritime Services - which signed a 20 year lease to operate what will eventually be five terminals at the port.
The Long Beach deal allowed the Chinese government-owned company to retain a 51 percent controlling interest in PMS.
This story gets worse with each telling.
First we're going to give it to the people with the Terrorist ties.
Now we're considering giving it to the fukking crooks.
Maybe that was the plan all along, threaten us with the terrorists first so that the crooks don't seems so bad.
It's time to go to Washington with an aresnal of small to medium size weapons and clean house!!
Anon
It turns out that Madeline Albright had been a consultant to the Dubai group in seeking this acquisition. Lacking any coherent and self-consistent body of political ideas the Democrats seize on any opportunity to make a political issue out of whetever comes by - even if some of them have already sold themselves to a reasonably high bidder.
georgeob1 wrote:It turns out that Madeline Albright had been a consultant to the Dubai group in seeking this acquisition. Lacking any coherent and self-consistent body of political ideas the Democrats seize on any opportunity to make a political issue out of whetever comes by - even if some of them have already sold themselves to a reasonably high bidder.
I'm sure there's a point in there ... somewhere ... for you ... somewhere
Anon
Perhaps I asked for too much interpretation from you.
This is a manufactrued issue, put forward for political purposes by a party that has no coherent or self-consistent policy of its own, and which has already sold itself to both sides in this artificial struggle.
