Arab Company Taking Over Port in Philadelphia...

[Planogirl]

You would compare the Shoe Bomber being British to our national security being run by a company which is OWNED by an Arab nation many people have doubts about? That's....interesting.

 

[Puffy2]

Where to begin???

Barbarians
Economic, Military ,Vandals, Hoarding and Deficit


duh....that DOES refer to the farming out of national security...the so called barbarians and vandals were the securing forces (of course they didn't have any real incentive to secure the borders so they just let hoard though and invaded a little themselves. The money problems led to the Romans allowing this to happen.

And since romans remained in Constantinole after the fall, this isn't likely either: "Even the rise of Islam is proposed by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople."

But I will say that only ONE factor has been the MAIN cause for ALL civilizations that eventually fall : Internal disorder and POOR LEADERSHIP, and we certainly have poor leadership now.

and as for

Don't you all think that the SAME security checks that happen now will continue to happen? What's to say it's ALL so secure now? Read reports about it. They've been saying since Sept 2002 that the ports need more security.

you have no arguement there.

Over 4 years later after 9/11 and we are no more safer now than we were then. Thousands of illegals pouring over that huge hole in our boarder to the south every single day (gee, I wonder if a potential or terrorist or two has managed to cross over ?), unprotected weapons grade materials at many of our nation's universities, and that steller national response for hurricane Katrina. Yep, I feel real secure with W and his gang at the helm.

and

Why didn't the DEMOCRATS complain when this was going through the security vetting? Where were they THEN? Now that it's gonna happen - HEY, great opportunity. It's all BUSH'S fault. I'd bet there were one or two democrats involved in that security vetting. Maybe you should be complaining about THEM????

they did complain as a matter of fact, if it wasn't for their complaining probably none of us would even know about it. And thanks to a couple of Democrats, legislation is being introduced to make this illegal. Who wants to bet the majority of Republicans who are more concerned with stuffing their own pockets than national security won't vote for it?

 

[Alice Sr.]

It means absolutely nothing. A change of ownership. How many of you know that Citgo is 100% owned by PDVSA, the national oil company of Venezuela? Where's the talk about that? Read what their president had to say this weekend?

Get over it. It is a global economy.

Just because we are becoming/are a global economy does not mean we can't choose to align ourselves with a country more in tune with our economic and political beliefs. I purchase my gas from BP, not because I back the UK (European) invasion of America, but I sure think we can trust them more than the UAE or Venezuela.

 

[Free4Life11]

Why didn't the DEMOCRATS complain when this was going through the security vetting? Where were they THEN? Now that it's gonna happen - HEY, great opportunity. It's all BUSH'S fault. I'd bet there were one or two democrats involved in that security vetting. Maybe you should be complaining about THEM????

You know it gets VERY old when people turn things into a partisan issue! This is one of the reasons this country can't solve so many of its problems -- too many people are focused on continuing the division and bickering.

The second anyone says anything, oh they're out to get Bush! And this is coming from a registered Republican who voted for Bush! This isn't just about Bush.

 

[JPN4265]

On the surface it seems to be a very bad move on the United States part, but until more information comes out I will hold on to my final opinion. Although I support most of President Bush's policies, I think he falls way short on homeland security and border control's. If he were to run for president again, and the Dem's had a good strong canidate I could be incouraged to vote a differenct way.

 

[Tanuki]

The conservatives ran on the concept that the private sector would do a better job of running things than the government would.

So now they sell the operation of our ports to a company owned by the GOVERNMENT of a foreign country.

I guess the only government conservatives think can't run things is the US government.

 

[VSL]

Just because we are becoming/are a global economy does not mean we can't choose to align ourselves with a country more in tune with our economic and political beliefs. I purchase my gas from BP, not because I back the UK (European) invasion of America, but I sure think we can trust them more than the UAE or Venezuela.

OT, but surely most American's are descendants of the invaders?

(ie, many American's are not of native American heritage)

 

[NJBlackBerry]

Just because we are becoming/are a global economy does not mean we can't choose to align ourselves with a country more in tune with our economic and political beliefs. I purchase my gas from BP, not because I back the UK (European) invasion of America, but I sure think we can trust them more than the UAE or Venezuela.

But you (and I) have no idea which foreign investors own the companies you purchase from. Ever looked at the holdings of the Saudi royal family? Or the Bahrain investment trust? Of course not! How much of BP is owned by people you don't approve of politically? Do you buy any gasoline made from Russian or Saudi or Nigerian oil? Who owns your water company? Good chance it isn't American.

We don't know! Where do we think all of the "petro dollars" are going? They are being reinvested in solid companies. Like the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. - which no one had ever heard of before last week. And now it is a national security issue.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

Aloha!

Promises to be an interesting discussion on LOU DOBBS/CNN. He just called Homeland Security a "bad joke perpetrated on the American people..."

Here in NJ, TWO ports plus NY & Philly being turned over...

We can't control our borders, only 4% of our cargo in ports is screened, most packages on planes ARE STILL NOT screened, small knives are now OK on planes, we can't get water to people suffering thru a hurricane, still no improved communication for our 1st responders BUT...we must listen in to phone calls without warrants as the 2nd string field agents in the NSA see fit!!!!! ....HOMELAND SECURITY??? WHO ARE WE KIDDING?
~Rose~

 

[jenimay]

Aloha!

Promises to be an interesting discussion on LOU DOBBS/CNN. He just called Homeland Security a "bad joke perpetrated on the American people..."

Here in NJ, TWO ports plus NY & Philly being turned over...

We can't control our borders, only 4% of our cargo in ports is screened, most packages on planes ARE STILL NOT screened, small knives are now OK on planes, we can't get water to people suffering thru a hurricane, still no improved communication for our 1st responders BUT...we must listen in to phone calls without warrants as the 2nd string field agents in the NSA see fit!!!!! ....HOMELAND SECURITY??? WHO ARE WE KIDDING?
~Rose~

I saw this last night and it alarmed me. He and the others on the show made a very good case against this. I hope public opinion turns this around, and Bush vetos it. There's got to be another way besides putting so many ports in the hands of Arabs (even though they are considered safe: two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission). And as far as the screening, they would be in charge of random screening the cargo, ships (95% of which is not screened at all). and we would provide security for the port. There is just too much risk here.
BTW, I am not a democrat, but I am disguisted with most of Bush's policy decisions.
Jeni

Jeni

 

[jfulcer]

You know it gets VERY old when people turn things into a partisan issue! This is one of the reasons this country can't solve so many of its problems -- too many people are focused on continuing the division and bickering.

The second anyone says anything, oh they're out to get Bush! And this is coming from a registered Republican who voted for Bush! This isn't just about Bush.

I'm sorry Free4Life11, I'm really not myself trying to turn this into a partisian issue. I'm VERY tired of it also. It's all the "Bush and his administration are doing this" and on and on and on. It really gets tiring. I really hope that next election a democrat gets put into office we can blame everything on them. It's about time they take their turn for getting all the blame.

 

[jfulcer]

and they did complain as a matter of fact, if it wasn't for their complaining probably none of us would even know about it. And thanks to a couple of Democrats, legislation is being introduced to make this illegal. Who wants to bet the majority of Republicans who are more concerned with stuffing their own pockets than national security won't vote for it?

I'm sorry, but they did NOT complain. This whole deal was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of the FBI, Pentagon and Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security departments. You cannot tell me that every single one of those people involved in this were wrong? And not a single one of them were Democrats?

Federal legislation? I find it ironic that both democrats and republicans are behind this push to 'make it illegal for a Global company to operate United states ports'. The problem is this makes it illegal for P&O to continue to do it. So who will????

Nobody has mentioned this, but it is the Coast Guard's responsibility for security in those ports. I'd be willing to bet that their budget was cut this year, along with most other things. Their job is NO DIFFERENT whether P&O runs the ports, or DP World.

 

[bsnyder]

Some interesting facts I posted on the other thread on this subject. From the NY Times: (the bold emphasis is mine)

:
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.

But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes they are! The port of Miami is in Jeopardy too, if they are allowed to do this.

It's presumptous to say that any port is in "jeopardy". The cargo operations have been under the control of the Brits for years. That company has been sold to a company in Dubai. It's only about port operations, not about port security,l customs or ownership. Jeopardy implies that there is a grave risk to the function and operation of the port. There is no evidence of that at this time. I think we need more information before we decide to panic.

 

[jfulcer]

What's even funnier about this whole uproar is that at the end of 2004, beginning of 2005, DP World acquired CSX World Terminals.

I'll give you $50 if can't guess where CSX World Terminals has ports. Let's see, Asia, Latin America, and The United States.

So if it's ok for them to operate those ports/terminals in the US, then why is it wrong that they operate these????

 

[jfulcer]

Just because we are becoming/are a global economy does not mean we can't choose to align ourselves with a country more in tune with our economic and political beliefs. I purchase my gas from BP, not because I back the UK (European) invasion of America, but I sure think we can trust them more than the UAE or Venezuela.

Ok, lesse, BP is a global operation. We'd be hard pressed to find out if they do any oil business with the UAE, now wouldn't we. Or maybe not . If BP trusts them enough to have major investments in the country, should you?

 

[DawnCt1]

What's even funnier about this whole uproar is that at the end of 2004, beginning of 2005, DP World acquired CSX World Terminals.

I'll give you $50 if can't guess where CSX World Terminals has ports. Let's see, Asia, Latin America, and The United States.

So if it's ok for them to operate those ports/terminals in the US, then why is it wrong that they operate these????

In addition, the Port of Dubai services the majority of our ships in the middle east....our NAVY SHIPS. It certainly seems that they have competently done the job for some time now, particularly since we have had a presence there for years.

 

[NJBlackBerry]

This really is much ado about nothing.

But... "President Bush on Thursday defended his administration's decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, "People don't need to worry about security."

HUH? Too much. Even for someone who voted for him twice...

 

[DawnCt1]

This really is much ado about nothing.

But... "President Bush on Thursday defended his administration's decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, "People don't need to worry about security."

HUH? Too much. Even for someone who voted for him twice...

I really think your quote; 'People don't need to worry about security', was taken out of context. Obviously he was putting forth the explanation that there is no additional security risk in DPW running the terminals. Security assessment and control doesn't change with who writes the paychecks to the dock workers.

 

[NJBlackBerry]

Unfortunately, he didn't qualify it. It is a quote. Splashed across every media outlet in the world. It was a very poor choice of words, on a politically charged topic.