Posted on 02/20/2006 4:13:19 PM PST by Dane
A team from Dubai's DP World is expected to start meetings on Tuesday with groups which have expressed concerns about its takeover of P&O Ports' US operations as it seeks to head off political opposition to the deal.
The company, owned by the Emirate of Dubai's Ports, Customs and Freezones Authority, is set to meet representatives of some of the five US port authorities where P&O has operations, and national politicians who oppose the deal.
The team is thought to include some of the many US citizens who work for DP World, including Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer, who has been one of the main actors in Dubai's transformation into a major shipping hub.
They hope the meetings will erode support for efforts to reverse the approval already given for the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which approved the takeover in January. The efforts gained momentum last week when Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez introduced legislation which would prevent a company controlled by a foreign government from taking over a US port facility.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Sorry, but that cite doesn't apply. This isn't a foreign company investing in the US, or a foreign co. taking over a US one. This is a case where a British Co. is being sold to one based in Dubai. The Brits don't have a problem, nor do any of the other P&O customers (Australia, Canada, Germany, etc)
The best the US can do is get out of the contracts they had with P&O. Then what?
No I'd rather see what logician2u and Jimmy Carter have in common. He like you supports the deal. That right there is enough to give me pause.
Then pay attention. The contract is for moving containers. The Coast Guard is still responsible for security.
The world is not all black and white, thank God.
In the article it breaks down the various links in the security chain. The Coast Guard are near the end.
Please describe what you think is the job DP World will be doing in the shipping and delivery of containers. You keep implying that their function will have no impact whatsoever on security.
No to the UAE running American ports. NO NO NO.
And you clearly don't understand that not everything is politics. But I commend you for getting interested in politics at such a young age.
You keep asking this question as if there's no alternatives. Two governors are already talking about canceling their state contracts if it goes through. The pressure is growing to stop the deal and why it won't see the light of day.
And what I was referring to, specifically, was not which "side" you and Hillary and Chuckie came down on, but rather the faulty (i.e., emotionally-charged, demonizing) manner employed when arguing your case.
:) In 1980 I voted for Reagan when you were still playing with your toys son. You have no clue of American politics and how it works but I commend you for your pretense, I'm sure your goldfish are impressed. In the meantime the deal is DOA, get over it.
Sure, they can do that. I don't have a problem with that - I approve of the idea of having local Port Authorities.
I'd like to know how they intend to keep their ports open, so if you can point me to their alternative plans, I'd appreciate it. I haven't been able to find those.
The argument was not based on anything but logic and reality. If you don't think given the history of Muslim fanatics and the culture in that of the world that terrorists couldn't eventually buy or bully their way into port operations you're more naive than I realized. Thankfully mature, responsible people are seeing to it this deal goes down.
You could very well be right.
As with the failure to allow drilling in the ANWR, enough pressure applied at the right places can constrict the normal flow of polical deal-making.
It doesn't make it right.
Produce one example to support your claim or you have no claim.
Thanks for your response. I'm just now getting back to this thread--appreciate your comments.
I was just curious when the move to let foreign operations run ports happened. Would be interesting to know what happened to the US companies which ran ports before the switch to foreigners.
It surprises me too that with every kind of business and industry under the sun active in the US, that there is virtually no American business still active in running ports on a major scale. To me that sounds like a very typical American-type business to have, like apple pie.
Such as President Bush? LOL.
Not everything is politics. There are economic, and, yes, even humanitarian reasons to make choices. If you make all of your decisions for political reasons (esp. party based) you are drifting in the wind.
Find a core set of beliefs, and don't worry about party politics.
You'll never get better advice. :-)
It took me all of two seconds to google the typical cultural ways things are done in Muslim societies. There's no way we can take the chance given 9/11 that terrorists won't be trying the same thing on those running port operations.
This isn't about me and I would rather the decision had been made responsibly to begin with, which is to say the deal had not been approved. But as you can see the way the House leaders are moving as quickly as they are to squelch the deal they're clearly worried about the political implications of it all.
Produce just one example of terrorists trying to "buy or bully their way into port operations" anywhere in the world, and we'll agree that it's a problem.
Knowing what I do of the East Coast ports, the only bullying we should expect is from the Longshoremen's Union, and that's not likely to go away with a change in ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.