UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

UPI ^ | 2/24/2006 | PAMELA HESS

[devolve]

To: MoHam

[hedgetrimmer]

They load and unload ships

In 21 ports. Stop doing it and its quite the attack on our economy since the "free traders" by design have created such a dependence on imports for us in the United States. Why should the UAE have that kind of power over us?

[Hatteras]

I have seen arguments "for" and "against" this deal. The reports from people who seem to be against this deal early on made no attempt to distinguish a difference between port "operations" and port "security". Thinking that we were dealing with port "security", I was against the takeover. Like most people, I did not even realize that another foreign country (UK) was already in place at these ports. Now that the "news" has come up that this is a deal about port "operations", I don't see why people are upset.

Heck, we have a popular shopping mall in the area that is 90% owned by the UAE. Nobody seems to care about that. Does the general public know that the CITGO stations in their neighborhood are owned by a foreign country (Venezuela/Chavez)?

The only problem I now have is that those defending the takeover deal have made some good points about the UAE but they are also neglecting to tell the whole story. For instance, I heard Rush say on the radio that, in regards to the UAE and their relationship with the U.S., the UAE even donated $100 million dollars to the Katrina relief fund. Terrific! That's a good sign, right?

But wait.... Rush forgot to mention that the donation was made just a few short weeks ago. It doesn't take Ben Matlock to figure this "donation" out.

[i_dont_chat]

What is with this trend we are seeing here in Free Republic?

There are a few who think that if a person doesn't agree 100% with the Administration, that person is accused of being unpatriotic, is stupid, is a troll, is a cry-baby, blah, blah, blah.

This is a dangerous trend, in my opinion. It is not conducive to intelligent debate.

Debate is a very useful tool; one which must be present in a free society.

Comments?

[hedgetrimmer]

Heck, we have a popular shopping mall in the area that is 90% owned by the UAE

I blame this on the destruction of our education system by the NEA and federal government, and the selling of our national media to foreign corporations. While schools all over the country teach children we are 'citizens of the world', and the media focuses on the trivial, the plain old common sense knowledge of what makes a NATION secure and prosperous is becoming a rare commodity. If you didn't know this already, let me tell you. There is a huge difference between a shopping mall and a port. If you need help to figure out what that is, let me know.

[Hatteras]

"There is a huge difference between a shopping mall and a port."

Yeah, I know. Terrorists won't target the ports.

[commish]

Why should the UAE have that kind of power over us?

I can ask the same question about the Longshoreman that will actually be doing the loading and unloading. Thanks to thier union they have that power over us at every single terminal at every single port.

You do realize that outside of management in the home office in Dubai, that every single employee at the actual ports will be an American right? You do know that DPO COO is an american don't you? You also know that out of thier entire Board of Directors, exactly ONE person is from the UAE (albeit he is the CEO), every other board member is American, British, Dutch or Indian.

This is an international company, it is not a bunch of Arabs that will be suddenly running around our Ports. DPO runs Terminals at ports all over the world. They have not been tied to one single terrorist network or incident in thier entire exsistance.

The UAE even allows us to Station DHS and Customs agents AT THEIR HOME PORTS to inspect cargo and manifests. They did this voluntarily after a story a couple years ago that UAE ports might have been a transit point for scientific equipment going to Libya I think.

[hedgetrimmer]

Until Bill Clinton got in power, ocean and fresh water ports were considered sensitive and protected for NATIONAL security. Since Bill Clinton and the "free traitin'" globalists of the the Bush administrations have been "reinventing our government" we have lost our ability to protect our vital interests to the international corporations favored by the globalists.

The COO is an American? Where do you think his allegiance lies?

[LisaFab]

Because there are some here who just hate GWB and use any excuse to say, "See, my fellow conservatives, this guy is really not 'one of us'."

Thank the Lord there was no FR when Reagan was in office!

[indcons]

You have FReepmail

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, nobody disputes that the law applies in this case. Even the merger agreement specifically includes dependencies on getting through this review.


The argument by congress NOW that all the facts are out has been whittled down to simply whether or not a 45-day formal review is REQUIRED, or if the reviewing agency is only AUTHORISED to do a 45-day review, but not REQUIRED to do one.

The procedures FOR the group have ALWAYS been to evaluate a sale, and only have a formal review if one of the participants finds an objection or a concern. That was true for many mergers and aquisitions evaluated during the Clinton administration (which may be why Bill isn't talking).

It may well be that a court would find the 45-day review is mandatory. I'm not a lawyer. But if it is, it wasn't Bush's fault they didn't do it, he isn't even allowed by the law to be a part of the process until after the reviews are completed.

I'm also wondering if the reason it was so easy for the government to approve this deal is because they have already have several reviews of this company.

For example, they must have closely evaluated this company when they were signing trade agreements a couple of years ago to enhance security of shipping containers (we require U.S. personell access to containers in foreign ports, and UAE was the first to sign these agreements).

We also must have evaluated UAE when putting together the agreements to have them service our military ships in their ports.

And, the same law must have been triggered in last year's sale of CSX's foreign port operations to DP World.

The democrats who last week said this deal was OBVIOUSLY wrong are now simply saying they want a full 45-day review just to make sure we can solve any little issues amicably. They seem "shocked" that no agency found anything bad-looking about this. But I think they just didn't think about the fact that this would not have been the first time an evaluation would have been done on this company.

Or that we have been closely monitoring UAE since 9/11 as part of the cooperation we are getting from them.

[Just mythoughts]

I do not disagree with anything you wrote.

However, let's take a look right here in good old USA, our liberals flat out lied about what is taking place here and sought to present a sale of a business from one foreign nation to another foreign nation as a President Bush sale.

Where were these liberals when the first foreign nation was running the ship parking business. These terrorists have used our supposed allies as bases from which to enter our country from Germany to England. These self same liberals adopted N.Korea from Russia and supplied them with the very nuclear they the N. Koreans are now threatening US with. These liberals also used the INS as their voter registration agency in the mid 90's to get reelected.

I could go on and on and on about the method, manner and means our very own liberals use to seduce the masses while enslaving them in government run programs. Hillry itching about national security when under her co-presidency hired the architect of all architects to build walls within the very security agencies that were established to protect US.

Further these liberals could not get to their vote levers quickly enough to supposedly ban US from supposed "torture", yet they sit and play with themselves and will not protect our energy needs in a tiny spot drilling in ANWAR.

These freaks opposed the removal of Saddam and his butchery torture and abominations using his oil enriching supposed civilized nations under a UN Oil for rotten Food program.

So when Chuckie and Hillry start accusing with their pointed fingers that President Bush is inviting terrorists to control our ports, I need see which pot of money they are fishing for.

[metalcor]

Darnit! Don't inject facts into this converstation, you are only trying to divert our attention fromm our self-righteousness! Typical tactic for the common sense pragamatist who are threatening our ignorance...

[CharlesWayneCT]

Slight correction: They will complete the purchase of P&O, but have PROMISED not to take any actions regarding the U.S. ports for now while the details are worked out.

They certainly don't expect a further review to change things.

[CWOJackson]

They won't change but it would be funny if it did...that would leave them with Singapore and own background issues with the contract.

[Fishrrman]

Hermann the Cherusker writes:
This is such stupid hysteria. Here in Philadelphia, where they are allegedly being "given our port", they are actually going to manage a single warehouse and wharf at Tioga Marine Terminal used mostly to import fruit from South Africa and Chile.

One nuke, one container, one ship, one warehouse, on an out-of-the-way wharf.

How much do you need?

- John

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[CharlesWayneCT]

Iran WAS one of our best allies. Then some well-meaning people in government like Jimmy Carter decided we should punish our friend because frankly he did a LOT of bad things, and he wasn't really nice to his people, and he had tied to shady organizations -- all the things we here now about UAE.

So Carter cut down the Shah, and the Ayatollah took advantage and staged a coup. And a country that was one of our best allies in the region turned almost overnight into our biggest enemy, as they took over our embassy.

Now almost 30 years later they are the single biggest threat to our way of life in the world today.

Lesson: Don't unnecessarily antagonize and undercut your friends, you might not like the alternative.

This of course is NOT the lesson the opponents of this sale wanted us to get from bringing up Iran.


On the larger picture -- every country is a potential enemy, and a potential ally. Nobody can say which will be which in 30 years. The law doesn't even ALLOW us to do that in this case, we have to evaluate based on ACTUAL threats, not threats that may or may not exist in the future.

[commish]

Since Bill Clinton and the "free traitin'" globalists of the the Bush administrations have been "reinventing our government" we have lost our ability to protect our vital interests to the international corporations favored by the globalists.

THank You, Now we get to the gist of your argument, and I cannot fault you whatsoever for that position. However, you framed your argument earlier in the context of us allowing Arab's to run our ports, when your real beef is with the policies that allow any foreign entity access to our ports.

In that vein, I say god speed, and count me along for the ride in any attempts to get these policies tightened or changed

However, in the case at hand, everything has been done according to the rules in place now, and DPO has been found trustworthy.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I should point out that the number 6 came from all sources in opposition to this deal. I don't think the administration ever said anything like "hey, it's only 6 ports", although I've read that here.

It is "interesting" that the number is 21, but I imagine the others aren't as comprehensive as the 6 -- there must be some reason why those 6 stood out for the opponents to harp on that number for so long.

This also once again points out that there are american companies running these ports -- they are simply subsidiaries of foreign companies. And after the deal, the same american companies will run the ports, reporting to the same people in the foreign company -- it's just that now THAT company's board will be reporting up to the board of a different company.