After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

FR Poll ^

[La Enchiladita]

Here's a map for you of P&O ports in North America, presumably to be included in the deal:

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

[TatieBug]

As a thinking Freeper and American, I supported this decision from the beginning and just couldn't understand some of the Rep especially out there acting like maniacs before knowing anything...i.e., Senate Maj Leader!!!!! Gotta give John McLame credit for saying wait. Frist, et.al, just gave the D's quotes from R's and had a hayday. President Bush nor the Congress were supposed to know about this so why do they think they were? Amazing. Financially it could be awful for our country if it's stopped but then, think about it, that's what the D's want...everything to FAIL...stock market, jobs, war but most of all President Bush. In the end, I don't think this one will be their big "national security" tagline for the elections and if it is...WHO DO THEY WANT TO RUN THE PORTS? Couldn't the talking heads start asking what the alternative is for running our ports..oh, and by the way, how about our 2nd largest base...where is it? I could go on and on and have gone on to long already but this took Cheney off the front page and something else will replace this that they can PRAY will Impeach Bush!

[Rte66]

P&O Ports only LEASES terminals in those six ports which were first named.

The only place DPW would be *managing* any operations would be within the terminals where they LEASE space/equipment to service their clients.

As it is, these operations are a very small part of the overall operations at any one given port. It is just one terminal or in some ports, two. That's out of dozens of terminals, sometimes more than 100, as in the case of the Port of Houston.

In the other 15 or however many ports, P&O's operations are simply stevedoring service contracts, nothing more. In some they have additional services they contract, but they don't manage any of the terminal activities.

Service and labor contracts run out and are open to re-negotiation; they're not quite "property" like a lease contract is. Even at that, the leases are as short as 6 years (shortest one I noticed, some might be less), not the 30 years Schumer referred to, as in the ONE in NY/NJ.

Note also that in many cases, the port authority or other entity is the 50% partner and some are joint ventures where P&O is not the general partner. You have to read the specs on each port terminal's work descriptions.

[Wuli]

I commented on this same fact, in this thread or a related one.

I responded to another poster who presented some Treasury Dept. documentation supporting how qualified Mr. Sanborn is, for the Maritime Administrator job.

My response was, essentially, (I'm paraphrasing);

O.K., he's very qualified;

are we supposed to take that to mean that no one else in the whole country is as equally qualified?;

I don't believe in coinicidences in politics; and,

we have a foreign company about to acquire its first major stake in U.S. assets in its industry and almost SIMULTANEOUSLY one of that company's top executives is leaving the company to head the US government agency that oversees that industry?? Mere coincidence??? I don't believe it. I most certainly do not believe in coincidences when it comes to deals in Washington, D.C.

I believe:

if we could get the documents that were submitted to CFIUS, and
know who they were submitted by,
and
know who outside of that committee spoke to that committee and its members (what lobbyists and people from congress - staff as well as reps - were involved),
and
follow their money and there political trails,
and
get the documents and letters of recommendations, to the treasury and to congress, for approval of Mr. Sanborn,
my guess is
that we would then find a convergence of interests behind both Mr. Sanborn's appointment and the DPWorld deal.

One poster said I needed to wear more tin foil. Sorry, I do not think people for whom money is the primary motive can be trusted to put their nation's interest ahead of that money interest, whether it be on behalf of themself or someone who is paying them to achieve an influence.

The bad part about the way that congress constructed CFIUS is that by taking any oversight role away from the "evil political and special interests" in Congress and providing no demand that all CFIUS decisions be taken all the way up to the Cabinet officers, and the President, it allowed that these deals would all be "back room" secret deals, in which the collusion of the permanent government in the bureaucracy with the lobbyists, would never see the light of day; until the %^^$# hit the fan with a deal like this one.

To say that CFIUS is working for the national interest and in the same breath acknowledge that out of a few thousand deals it has only turned down a handful, is more than a disgrace. The fox is guarding the chicken coop, in this area of our national interest.

[zook]

Strongly support.

[spikeytx86]

I support the trade deal but not at the expense of our majorities in congress.

[spikeytx86]

This is not outsourcing, there investing in America, there not importing people from the U.A.E. to work or man the ports, there going to be the same people who work them now.

It is not outsourcing when a company invests in this country, when Toyota opens up a factory here and employs thousands of factory workers do you call that outsourcing?

[ex-snook]

"It is not outsourcing when a company invests in this country,:

Sorry, then even the operation of our domestic factories, as well as our ports, is being outsourced to more efficient operators. Can our previous great strength in capital, creativity and efficiency ever be restored? If we can't, then we are then on our way to becomming a third world country that everyone 'invests' in.

[Molly T.]

Still opposed.

I'm so tired of hearing,"Americans won't do "it', American's CAN'T do it. I was dead set against Carter giving away the Panama Canal, I was appauled when I learned many of our National PARKS AND HISTORICAL sites, as in the Liberty Bell etc. are now under the direction of the UN, of all outfits....oh I forgot Yellowstone Park.

Before you label me some kind of bigot or racist, let me say, I'm AGAINST ANY foreign country running our ports. I'm tired of our own gov., that means Dem's and Rep's helping to weaken our NATIONAL strength by their actions concerning our industrial base being outsourced,refusing to gain control of our borders, being at the beck and call of big business, so they can have their cheap labor.

Has anyone thought about what we'd do if threatened by another country like China or who ever.....we don't make anything in this country, all we're good for is consuming what the rest of the world sends in to us.

I'm prepared to be flamed big time on this one, but I'll tell ya, I'm over 70 and I can remember when our country was vibrant, self sufficient,and had some semblance of control over what direction she was going. Of course that was long before World trade was the mantra, and NAFTA, CAFTA, talk of doing away with the borders, and not to be forgotten....POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. That last one will be the undoing of our nation as we've know it.

[La Enchiladita]

Okay, I also read a more informative article on CNN in line with what you are saying: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/25/port.security/index.html

Therefore, although P&O do business in 23 of our ports, DPW is buying the ops in 6 ports. That accounts for the reporting discrepancy.

Also did some research on Dubai, as well as UAE. Dubai seems created basically as a place to do business (JAFZ) and for entertainment. The UAE entire is a different matter, as the other emirates are much more oil-rich.

A sticking point for me is that the Dubai government is the major shareholder in DPW, and that "government" consists of one individual, Sheikh Mohammend bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

No matter how "benign" a business deal this seems, I say, "No thanks." Let's try to do better.

[World'sGoneInsane]

I'm still looking for facts. The P&O site makes no mention of the contract or the buyout. There is no mention of the length of the lease anywhere. Was the buyout before or after the lease? (You can't believe anything you read in the newspaper).

Our security may be more compromised by this deal not going through at this point--that almost makes me want support it. All the publicity is good on one hand, but not on the other. I find it incredible there are no American companies to handle the containers.

I'm still opposed.

[La Enchiladita]

I'll get "in before the flame" and say you are RIGHT ON!

[Borax Queen]

I can remember when our country was vibrant, self sufficient,and had some semblance of control over what direction she was going. Of course that was long before World trade was the mantra, and NAFTA, CAFTA, talk of doing away with the borders, and not to be forgotten....POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

BTTT! When our country was a country and we hadn't been sold down the river.

[La Enchiladita]

I recently compiled a list of words and phrases I am sick of. I'm adding "tinfoil" to the list now.

The offer by DPW to P&O was made on November 29, 2005. DPW exec Dave Sanborn was appointed to a U.S. government position on January 24, 2006.

So, it's interesting that the U.S. Maritime Administration website lists "John Jamian" as the "Acting [since May 2003] Maritime Administrator." I guess Sanborn has not been sworn in yet? http://www.marad.dot.gov/Offices/MAR-100.html

The CFIUS was presumably notified of the offer sometime in December. Their decision was announced early February. Sorry I don't have exact dates. But, considering the Christmas and New Year's holiday, that was not much time for the review and required investigation.

[La Enchiladita]

Down the river, and without a paddle, as far as I can tell.

[Simo Hayha]

I'm not opposed to it. Security didn't stop the terrorists at the terminals. But it would be a hoot if Haliburton ended up with the deal.

[Eagle Eye]

I doubt it was intended to be "rammed" down anyone's throat; more likely just consdiered a routine business transaction.

Personally I think there will be an improvment in operations and probably security as well.

[metalcor]

support

These are capitalists, not jihadists. Having them share vested interests can only bring good things.

[thoughtomator]

I oppose it. I don't think the government of an Islamic nation has any legitimate business running port operations in the USA.

[processing please hold]

Oppose