Dubai company describes plans to sell U.S. port operations

San Diego Union (AP) ^ | 3-15-06 | Ted Bridis

[clawrence3]

WASHINGTON – A Dubai-owned company said Wednesday it plans to sell all its U.S. port operations within four to six months to an unrelated American buyer and laid out new details about how it plans to pursue the sale under pressure from Congress. DP World said that until the sale is finalized, its U.S. businesses will be operated independently.

[MCCRon58]

Simple, Schumer,and his bud, little Dickie Durbin (child senator) know that if they can drive a wedge between the US and our Arab world allies they will have gone a long way to helping defeat the USA in the Terrorist wars, and thus be able to make political hay about how GW has screwed up the war effort.

Amazing how all they had to do was simultaneously push the fear button AND play the race card to get so many stooges tom play along.

[mewzilla]

You're not kidding. But I don't think they'll have an easy time shilling for their contributors now. Too many people watching.

[clawrence3]

Thanks for the bump - here's some more info:

DPW estimates that the port terminal operations are worth a combined $700 million. "An expedited sale process is under way and with the cooperation of the port authorities and joint venture partners, it is expected that a sale can be agreed within four to six months," said DPW.

It said it would now be proving information about its U.S. operations to "interested parties", but did not name any possible suitors. DPW added that it would look at all offers based on their "value, deliverability and the continuity of management, employees and customers".

Trade experts have cautioned that the case sets a damaging precedent for other Middle Eastern firms planning to invest in the U.S.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4810242.stm

[clawrence3]

Good to have your first-hand knowledge aboard; we also have a real-life Container Inspector who posted on occasion about the security that Customs and Coast Guard are in charge of - there was nothing in the DPW deal that was a negative in that reagrd - in fact, they had promised to UPGRADE security with at least $100 million more. Hopefully, this deal falling through did not actually make us less safe, and we can salvage our Arab allied relationships.

[P-40]

I hope we are not thinking about kicking all of them out now too.


That was what Hilary was screaming about for a time.

[inquest]

but you already knew that, right?

I was already told that by people on this site, but that's all I've really had to go on so far. And when they then say things that seem at variance with it, I'm going to question it. Do you have a problem with that?

[clawrence3]

Hopefully, cooler heads prevailed in the Clinton household (I can't believe I just posted that ; )

[clawrence3]

You never followed any of the links to sworn testimony before Congress or all the security experts about this deal - or you "question" those too?

[inquest]

Depend on how you define ports, doesn't it?

Do they run operations at the entire port, or just certain areas of loading and offloading?

As to rooting against my own country. Perhaps if you spread your ribs, you would see that the only ones rooting against the USA are those who wish to remove our allies in the Terrorist wars by alienating our allies in the Arab world.

No, the ones rooting against the USA are the ones saying it would "serve us right" to get some blowback for this. Don't try and hide from your own words by strawmanning you opponents' position.

[clawrence3]

The comapny press release is still not up at P&O North America: http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82847:169_83549&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

If you come across the entire statement today, please let me know - thanks.

[colorado tanker]

Well, if this sale doesn't go to Chuckie Schumer's campaign supporters, we'll hear another earful about "national security" being endangered.

[clawrence3]

Who said "it would 'serve us right' to get some blowback for this"? Economic fallout, I could see - but nothing would justify another 9/11-type attack, if that's what you mean.

[clawrence3]

If it goes to Senator Murray's campaign supporters - SSA Marine, for instance - I doubt "national security" will be brought up by the Dems ; )

[inquest]

Amazing how all they had to do was simultaneously push the fear button AND play the race card to get so many stooges tom play along.

No, that would be what you're doing - accusing your opponents of racism and raising the spectre of the whole WOT coming apart because of the failure of this one deal. Not to mention doing your best to make sure that happens with your whole "serves us right" spiel.

[inquest]

You never followed any of the links to sworn testimony before Congress or all the security experts about this deal - or you "question" those too?

I question statements by supporters of the deal that come across as inconsistent with the general party line put out by most supporters of the deal. I want to make sure they're being consistent.

[clawrence3]

MCCRon58 said it would "serve us right if they just closed up the ports" - nothing about racism (although that is definitely a factor for SOME of those who piled on this deal).

[RightWhale]

Doc Holliday: 'This is funny.'

[clawrence3]

Fine - nothing you've pointed out has been "inconsistent" so far.

[inquest]

Economic fallout, I could see - but nothing would justify another 9/11-type attack, if that's what you mean.

No, I wasn't referring to another attack. But Ron was referring to more than just economic fallout. He and others have been implying that this would cripple our efforts in the WOT, and I'm highly skeptical as to how dire the effects really would be. I consider it fearmongering.

[inquest]

Saying they could "close up" our ports appeared, at least on the face of it, to be inconsistent with saying that they can't "control" our ports. That's why I asked for a clarification.