NEWS: Arab Firm May Gain Control of Several U.S. Ports

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

I agree 150% with both of you, we need to keep our ports under our control and out of the hands of possible terrorists.

It is good that we agree on this.

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
It's time that WE THE PEOPLE take back our country from the "Benedict-Arnolds" that has taken us down this road of betrail that they have been leading us on for the past four years or more.
.........................
It's high time that we demand that the Senate and House start Impeachment proceedings against the criminal elements in the White House

Now hold your horses there for a second, now you are exagerating and taking this out of context. The British company did not just appear out of nothing when president Bush was on office.

In fact, I did a little bit of research and found when was the first time this company started buying companies and interest in the U.S.

This is an old company, and they operated 55 ports in 16+ countries, in 2000, including the U.S.

The following excerpt tells us the first time P&O bought a U.S. company.

Among the more unusual and shortest-lived of P&O's diversifications in the 1970s was the acquisition of the Louisiana-based inland oil production company Falco, one of whose tankers is here seen on the road between well-head and refinery.

Excerpted from.
portal.pohub.com...,212189&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

Some of the other interests this company bought in the U.S.

Lenox Park, a P&O Properties urban business park in Atlanta, USA, was acquired when P&O took over the European Ferries group in 1987. After development was successfully completed, it was sold in 1999.

The Olympia International Showjumping Championships were already well-established when P&O acquired Earls Court and Olympia through the takeover of Sterling Guarantee Trust in 1985. "EC&O" was sold in 1999.

portal.pohub.com...,212189&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

P&O is one of the largest shipping companies in the world, it has bought and sold many companies from other countries, so this is not the first time they do this, and they haven't begun doing this under the present U.S. administration.

The following excerpt shows some of the latest mergers this company has had with other countries.

A series of international joint ventures was established. P&O Containers merged with the Dutch company Nedlloyd Lines at the end of 1996 to form P&O Nedlloyd, one of the three largest container shipping companies in the world, further enlarged by the acquisition of Blue Star Line in 1998. P&O Australia revived the old name International Offshore Services for an offshore supply vessel company set up with the Norwegian concern Farstad in December 1997. In March 1998 P&O and the Swedish company Stena merged their ferry services across the Straits of Dover; and in bulk shipping another old identity, Associated Bulk Carriers, was revived in July 1998 for a joint venture with the Chinese steel group Shougang to produce the world's largest fleet of "capesize" vessels, though in April 2000 P&O bought out its Asian partners.

Excerpted from.
portal.pohub.com...,212191&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

The following excerpt tells us how many ports this company owned in 2000

by the end of 2000 it operated some 25 container ports in 16 countries with other cargo handling interests in a further 30 ports.

Excerpted from.
portal.pohub.com...,212193&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

P&O started acquisition of operations in the U.S. in 1994 as we can see in the following excerpt.

In 1989 the business was expanded into New Zealand and in 1994 P&O entered the US market with the acquisition of operations in Southern California and Nevada. Other investments followed in Texas and New England, to make the USA the largest sector of the cold storage business. Investment also followed in Argentina in 1996, and the company was renamed P&O Cold Logistics in February 2000 to better reflect the development of the business and its expansion into inventory control, replenishment and delivery services.

Excerpted from.
portal.pohub.com...,212193&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL


I do agree that we should be getting these ports back, but this company has had control of U.S. ports for a while now.

This sale is part of the business cicle of P&O, they have done this several times before in many countries including the U.S., and there is no need to try to exagerate this so people can blame the present administration on the business practices of this company.


[edit on 21-2-2006 by Muaddib]

I guess since 9/11 we the American people has become more aware of how business are conducted in the US.

That is fine but also that awareness is making us to question who and what foreign firms have contracts in the US that can affect or are related to our national security or problems keeping our country safe.

Mauddib is right - Americans have been selling America for a long time. We're just now noticing we've been sold out.

Originally posted by soficrow
Mauddib is right - Americans have been selling America for a long time. We're just now noticing we've been sold out.

I agree free markets and capitalism while the best way to ensure a good and prosper economy has turned into corporate greed, we have been sold a long time ago to foreign interest.

The only thing we Americans have for sure is the national debt and the responsibility of paying taxes.

What a shame.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
While the company itself may be legit, how can you prove the same for what will be thousands of it's employees? We don't know their hiring methods. Do they even do background checks? Probably not. What is there to stop any terrorist group out there from infiltrating these positions and using it to their full advantage?

The company is legit. Can we ever be totally sure of who we employ. Just like those pilot training centers couldn't be sure that Muhammed Atah didn't really want to be a pilot for more than hour. Actually their probably alot more thorough. Most employers here in the US don't even bother to check the criminal background of their prospective employees. What is to stop a terrorist from infiltrating any organization?

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I'm sorry, but lately I have been lumping them all together, since lately the number of people in the Middle East doing crazy-arsed stuff to try and attack us, themselves, and the rest of the world is exponentially growing out of control. I'll change my mind when things calm down. Until then, it is MUCH better to be safe than sorry in my opinion.

Can't blame you altogether for that but do true and remember their all not burning down our embassies. The world has gotten alot nastier for us yanks and the west as a whole but its always been a nasty world. When things calm down? That may be a very long time my friend.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
There is no room to be politically correct when all other signs point squarely at the problem at hand. (I am not saying everyone or even the majority of them are engaging in this kind of behaviour, though, but enough to be reason for significant worry.)

I agree politcal correctness should take a back seat. But we can't be too paranoid. And your right most of them aren't interested in killing us some just want to do business.

Bush aides' with business ties to Arab firm

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

POND SCUM.... :shk:

Originally posted by soficrow
Mauddib is right - Americans have been selling America for a long time. We're just now noticing we've been sold out.

That's not true. The fact that America doesn't have controls set allowing only Americans to buy American real estate has bothered people at least since the 80s. In the 80s, the Japanese were buying up America like it was "Limited Edition". People were freaking out, and Michael Crichton even wrote a piece of propaganda (a.k.a. a persuasive argument detailing the facts) that might also have had a murder mystery in there somewhere called Rising Sun addressing this very fear.

People were afraid that, by selling our country's assets to foreign investors, we were going to bring about the collapse of the US. Most, if not all, other countries have limits and restrictions on this, but America does not. We are a generally capitalist society. How is that working for us?

We have one of the most diverse cultures in the world, if not the most diverse, by bringing all classes of all people into our country.

We have one of the most powerful economies, if not the most powerful, in the world. The dollar has been the standard in the world (the Euro is doing a fine job of competing, though, but only for the past few years. Time will tell the staying power), and it backed by absolutely nothing but a promise by the US government that it's worth something.

We have the most powerful military machine in the world, fueled by the tax dollars generated by the influx of business from throughout the world.

We generally dictate where diplomatic relations will lead, one way or another. When America takes a stand, nation's reactions are predictable, as they choose to stand with or against America before they consider the issue often.

People risk imprisonment and even death to leave their countries and come to this one to have hope for their futures because of the availability of decent or well paying jobs.

It really sounds like "selling" America has reinforced what America is and has caused it to be strengthened greatly.

EDIT: Loam, the way the deal went down, the treasury department didn't seek this company to operate our ports. When I first heard about that, it really troubled me, too. However, the only reason this is an issue is because the company bought out the one currently managing operations of the 6 ports. The only question is if the Treasury department was lax on checking them out on account of his recent close ties with DP World. Frist and Shumer are both calling for a legislative investigation into the company as well, which, for me, anyway, would take away that bias in the determination of DP World's ability to control operations. Now, you want real irony?

It was KOS who started to convince me this might not be such a bad thing:

www.dailykos.com...

[edit on 2/22/06/22 by junglejake]

The ties that perhaps our administration may have with the firm in question should be in the minds of any Americans in the US.

But been realistic is not Bush the one making the contracts or the one that put the ports for sale.

But he should be mindful as a president of the possible ties of the UAE and Terrorism .

Our security and port security is still the highest priority over investments and outsourcing of our ports.

Our administration should be very careful of how good or clean or safe this people are.

The UAE is known to be one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan..

www.tkb.org...

The UAE has been a key to illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

www.cnn.com...

After 9/11 FBI said that it was money transferred to the hijackers through the UAE banking system .

www.9-11commission.gov...

The treasury department complained that the UAE was not cooperating with efforts to track down Osama banks accounts.

If this doesn’t bother you or any other American and the president then I wonder how much of our nation’s security is worth over corporate deals and ties with some of the foreign countries and firms that our nations deal with.

It bothers me a lot.

Many people in this boards said that “Our country is not the same after 9/11” well it seems that our national security is not of much priority after all when it comes to business as usual.








[edit on 22-2-2006 by marg6043]

This is insane. The media thinks we're descriminating (ofecourse), but its totally justufuable given members have been parts of terrorist groups which have ill intent towards America!

Originally posted by Muaddib
Capitalism is based on individual rights, we, the people have the right to give our vote as to what we think is right or wrong, and governments have to act according to what we think, as a majority, that's Capitalism in a Republic.

Capitalism only works in regions where individual rights are protected, but it itself has nothing to do with those rights, except insofar as its an expression of those rights. Capitalism is just about the free movement of capital in the market. This sale of the assets of a london based company to a dubai based company is simply capitalism at work. If the public were to freak out and pass laws to prevent the sale, that'd be anti-capitalist government meddling with the marketplace.

THEY SHOULD BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE USA.USING USA EMPLOYEES.

Fair enough, however its immpossible to avoid noticing that its only because of the race/ethnicity of the current company that this is getting any attention. I hadn't ever even heard of who owns what percentages of what holdings in which ports in what coast of the US, let alone that a foreign corporation, this London based one, was the one owning so much of it. But now that its brown people that might get some of the action, its a holy terror.

junglejake\
the more shocked I am that the UAE actually wants to take this on. One mistake, and conspiracy will become a mainstream concept.

I had thought this too. They might, however, not have figured that the american public was this racist, and that there'd be this much of a reaction against 'evil arab brown people' having anything to do with the ports. The dubai government might've simply figured, 'americans don't have a problem with foreign companies owning these stakes, indeed, they are the ones that sold them originally, so this isn't something that is going to be a problem'. Also, while this company is owned by the UAE government, often these nationalized corporations are pretty independant (though obviously the government put some thought into this, as it contacted the US government before anything happened). So much of the decision to do this was probably done in a business office, with more referenceto economic reports and stockholdings and profit margins and the like, rather than poll numbers or international relations.

nanna_of_6
We need to "outsource" Bush&Co to the middle-east for good and take back what belongs to us,... the citizens of the USA

The control and stakes being sold here do not belong to you or the american public. They are bought and sold on the market as something like a commodity. You and the public have no right nor basis to claim that you own it. This is America, not weimar germany, france, egypt, or soviet russia.

loam
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

Now that is a cause for pause. But notice, no one is talking about it, because everyone is chest thumping over 'damn arabs'.

The media thinks we're descriminating (ofecourse), but its totally justufuable

Its hardly justifiable at all to be racist and bigoted. If a suicide-bomb goes off, and you can't hold and interview everyone in the area, sure, start with the arabs and muslims. Chances are pretty decent, given today's geopolitics, that it was muslims that did it. That hardly makes all muslims guilty. No one has been able to cite any rational reason for delaying this sale, save for loam. Everyone that is against this sale is only concerned about it because it involves arabs, and they figure 'all arabs are terrorists'. Nonsense. This company was investigated and vetted. It got approval. Thats all there is to it.

Originally posted by Nygdan

THEY SHOULD BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE USA.USING USA EMPLOYEES.

Fair enough, however its immpossible to avoid noticing that its only because of the race/ethnicity of the current company that this is getting any attention. I hadn't ever even heard of who owns what percentages of what holdings in which ports in what coast of the US, let alone that a foreign corporation, this London based one, was the one owning so much of it. But now that its brown people that might get some of the action, its a holy terror.

Nygdan, I think you have not been paying attention. Many of us have been noting for some time that a few multinational corporations own most of the world's real estate, resources and media.

These multinational corporations are NOT "American," but they own most of America, not just the ports.

an interesting read, for those who are interested.

Q & A: How the deal could affect port operations in Phila.

www.philly.com...

seems to be a nonbiased peice...

Originally posted by dawnstar
an interesting read, for those who are interested.

OK that link sounds harmless enough to me, I mean unless the Arab firm decided to clean the employees and take over the local business with new people from the Arab nations it seems pretty harmless.

But . . . this one is one touchy subject.

However, in other cities - such as Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas - the Peninsular & Oriental business, now controlled by Dubai Ports World, does move military cargo.

Soooo, it seems that in Other ports they will be to close to military sensible material for our own national security good.

This is what gives some homeland security experts great pause. Earl Freilino, a former FBI counterterrorism agent who has worked on port security in Philadelphia, said that in those other cities, Dubai Ports would have access to sensitive information about the movement of military cargo.

Good catch downstar

I need to weigh in on the notion that if one opposes this deal, it must be for bigoted reasons.

Anyone who has read my posts concerning the Mohammad Cartoons should know where I stand on the issue of Islamic prejudice. But, THIS SUBJECT is altogether a different matter...

First, what we are talking about is essentially transferring a portion of US port security responsibilities to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT...and to one that has hardly demonstrated a sound commitment, let alone effectiveness, to opposing terrorism.

Terrorism-related events in Dubai's recent past

FACTBOX-UAE in focus amid port security concerns

Moreover, when one considers the following poll results in the UAE, can anyone argue that their vigilance to protect us would match our own?

Arab Opinions

Those holding a favourable view of the US...14 per cent in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)...

When asked in the Maryland/Zogby poll: "Would you say that your attitudes towards the United States are based more on American values or on American policy in the Middle East..." ...75 per cent in the UAE blamed American policy...

...82 per cent in the UAE...do not buy claims by the Bush administration that the Iraq war decreased terrorism towards the US or that it could led to more democracy in the region. Nearly the same percentages believed that the recent so-called transfer of sovereignty in Iraq to a carefully picked government was merely a "cosmetic change" and that it could lead to more chaos. Oil, followed by protecting Israel and domination of the Muslim world topped the list of reasons why Arabs in those countries believe the US has invaded and occupied Iraq in the Maryland/Zogby poll....

Another aspect covered by the Maryland/Zogby poll included how citizens in the countries surveyed identify themselves. The number of respondents identifying themselves primarily as Muslims was highest in ...the UAE, ...66 percent... Only in Egypt and Lebanon did respondents identify themselves primarily as citizens of their own country...

Another aspect examined by the AAI poll was, "how do Arabs know about America," Among the respondents, one in five in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE have been to the US, while only one in 10 Moroccans and Lebanese have made such visits. Of those who travelled to the US, impressions of the country have been quiet positive, except for Saudis and UAE citizens who reported negatively on their experiences...

more...

Of course, none of this means that the deal would necessarily be bad for the US, but it does give one reason for significant pause.

While I am quite sure that "bigots" would oppose this deal, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why this transaction makes no sense, and they should NOT be ignored. :shk:

Under some of the logic I have seen here, some would apparnetly find it acceptable to give Vincente Fox control over our southern boarder crossings. Would that make sense? Are you a bigot because you think it doesn't?

As a final matter, I also bristle at the notion that to reject this deal is an unacceptable restriction on free trade. If that were true, then we would have NO antitrust laws in this country, no financial or legal review of securities transactions, and no need for government regulation of any kind where technology transfers are concerned.

Some things make sense because they PROTECT the United States and its citizens from harm...

In my view, "bigotry" has nothing to do with this issue.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by loam]

Loam you have to understand that while our own government has change our country with the excuse of 9/11 and given itself power because national security and the War on terror.

It kind of sounds very hypocritical that the notion of We do not do business with supporters of terrorism is none important when it comes to business transactions and profit margins.

So how important is our national security for real?

Or it doesn't apply to business partners in the Carlyle group elite of shared holders investors.

The UAE has members in it.

I've heard alot and read alot about what this company won't be doing...

anyone have any idea just what it is that they are doing under this contract to get all this money from our government to begin with??

In my view, as much as I am a little nervous handing over the port operations to an Arab Muslim country, however we should look at UAE's history with America. Has people forgotten that the UAE broke their relations with the Taliban when the U.S. asked for it? Had people forgotten that the America has bases in the UAE? People forgotten the relations that the UAE help support the U.S. against Iraq as well as Afghanistan which are both Muslim countries? The UAE are risking alot, facing the anger of Muslim extremists.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Has people forgotten that the UAE broke their relations with the Taliban when the U.S. asked for it? Had people forgotten that the America has bases in the UAE? People forgotten the relations that the UAE help support the U.S. against Iraq as well as Afghanistan which are both Muslim countries? The UAE are risking alot, facing the anger of Muslim extremists.

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer



Is that like forgotting about the UAE's ongoing child sex/slave trade and nuclear arms- smuggling? Bases in Iraq and Cuba hasn't equated to better government, so why should it in the UAE? So your point is as long as you can make some quick crony cash who cares about national security?


Michael Jackson surfaces in Dubai

Dubai risks nothing in the land of billionaires, freaks and slaves.
It's only a matter of payola to slip that 10 megaton nuke in a US harbor.





•DIRTY DUBAI DEALERS HELP FINANCE TERRORISTS
•Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
•Frist at odds with Bush over ports deal
•DeLay: Approval of port deal 'pretty outrageous'


Only thing forgotten in the Whitehouse is a brain and the country's safety.


[edit on 22-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

Not to start anything, but I seem to remember John Kerry making port security a big part of his campaign year before last. Not much attention got paid to his points in the debates... I'm just saying...

kerry.senate.gov...

[edit on 2/23/2006 by Flinx]

Why don't we let Halliburton run the ports?

I do believe everyone is reacting a little too quickly on this non-issue. We currently have a British company doing the management of those ports already. The British company was bought out by a group in the U.A.E. which has been doing the same thing for a number of years--what's the difference? Besides, we have NOMAD vans located at everyone of those ports to screen for nuclear materials and other things and those vans would not go away by changing the management company.