Politics - What Are Your Thoughts On The Ports Deal?

**Lee** · 02-21-2006, 06:37 AM

WASHINGTON -- New York Gov. George Pataki and another Republican governor are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports, and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.

In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.

Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports. DP World is a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the takeover.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a news release. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover.

Public fears that the nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's takeover of six major ports, proved a combustible mix.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically."

On ABC's "This Week," GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said: "It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it."

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

At least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

Critics have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. He said details of those agreements were secret.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...gion-apnewyork

Taking the 'Arab' aspect of the story out of it, i have to admit im very shocked that Homeland Security of all places are saying this is a good thing for America, i mean, damn, lets just let Osama take over port security :eek:

Anyone want to place bets on where America will be attacked next? Id place my money on the ports.

Regards,

Lee

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Lee

Taking the 'Arab' aspect of the story out of it, i have to admit im very shocked that Homeland Security of all places are saying this is a good thing for America, i mean, damn, lets just let Osama take over port security :eek:

Anyone want to place bets on where America will be attacked next? Id place my money on the ports.

Farenheit 911 was full of proven facts, one of which was that the Bush family is in bed with the Arabs and have been for quite some time.

ANY foreign entity in control of our ports is AS STUPID as puting Arabs in control of our borders or newspaper publishing, relying on foreign entities for oil, or paying puppet dictators, or letting foreign interests buy, or take large stakes, in U.S. landmarks and/or big business. So I'm sure to our current administration it makes perfect sense :high:

desslock · 02-21-2006, 11:44 AM

Well why stop with ports? What about when the Arabs want to buy our dairies? That's our milk for goodness sakes.... you know... children's milk!!!

Thank goodness we have such levelheaded craftsman like Michael Moore, as well as Governor Pataki, to show us how the Arabs, the Chineese and the Council of Foriegn Relations are conspiring to infiltrate and alter our precious bodily fluids.

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 11:57 AM

I mean seriously.... would the arabs let us control their ports?

**DEVELISH** · 02-21-2006, 11:58 AM

Hi Guys,
This is not meant to be rude in any way...

Question for the US-Guys...

Is the US concerned because a Dubai Company is going to "run" the ports or is are the US concerned that a foreign company is running them? Would it be different if the Germans, French, Great Britains would run them?

FraPort, a german company which own the Frankfurt Airport manages / owns / facilitates etc many other airports as well (look at the shares of some investments). I don't know about the reaction within the different nations like China, Austria, Greece, Peru, Belgium to have (large) portions of their Airports being run by the country that actually inflicted 2 World Wars...

Therefore I can not understand the fuzz about a corporation from a friendly country running ports.

Hey, 50% of y'all reelected that idiot running your country - go blame the guy who includet Texas as 28th state to the USA

DEVELISH

**DEVELISH** · 02-21-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Squirt

I mean seriously.... would the arabs let us control their ports?

Question: Is Dubai run by G.W.B? :-)

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by DEVELISH

Question: Is Dubai run by G.W.B? :-)

Was America behind the Danish Muslim cartoons?

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by DEVELISH

Hey, 50% of y'all reelected that idiot running your country

actually less then 1/3 the population of the U.S. voted Bush into office and the first time a judge decided he would become president.

**DEVELISH** · 02-21-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

actually less then 1/3 the population of the U.S. voted Bush into office and the first time a judge decided he would become president.

Only one third - wow - didn't know that - sorry y'all....

**DEVELISH** · 02-21-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

Was America behind the Danish Muslim cartoons?

<joke>
Yeah, yeah, the Danish-People... Next time around we will eradicate that filthy strip of land</joke>

desslock · 02-21-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

I mean seriously.... would the arabs let us control their ports?

Well, ok... first of all, all "Arabs" are not a collective hive mind.

So what if a company based in Dubai owns a port in the United States? Maybe these companies operate ports in numerous countries and they know what they are doing. There is no difference in that than with any other private company offering itself to run a service.

And you can always fire a company when it doesn't perform. The alternative: Think you can 'fire' the New York Port Authority or the New Orleans Levee Control Board if things stop operating? No.

This is just like the private companies who run Heathrow / Gatwick, or, dare I mention... Halliburton/KBR which is a company that offers services to military government agencies less expensively than if the US Army or Air Force did it themselves.

The reason I am skeptical of this effort by governors to prevent foreign ownership is because so often people just make companies they dislike "sinister" and "evil" ... on a purely emotional basis.

Countries nationalize their oil for the same xenophobic reasons. Mexico does not let foreigners own "their oil", as if Juan, Pepe and Maria over in Nuevo Laredo really are owners in Pemex. That's a cheat for people who simply want to keep control over their turf.

But that doesn't mean we should disallow Mexicans from buying stock in Exxon Mobil, or allow them to engage in business in the United States.

Steve

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by DEVELISH

Only one third - wow - didn't know that - sorry y'all....

Yeah the election in 2000 more people voted for Al Gore then Bush, but Bush had more electoral votes so he won the election by a judgement. So in 2000, if American elections were won by the majority of votes by voters, Bush would have lost.

In 2004 Bush won the popular vote by 3% and he won the electoral votes... yet only 25% of the U.S. population voted for Bush. The population was 295,734,134 and Bush received 62,040,606 votes for president, so much less then 1/3 that it equals about 1/4 aka 25% of the U.S. population.

It urks me when people say 1/2 of Americans voted for Bush to become President... that's not the truth and he doesn't deserve that much credit :high:

**DEVELISH** · 02-21-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

It urks me when people say 1/2 of Americans voted for Bush to become President... that's not the truth and he doesn't deserve that much credit :high:

Haha, that's an interesting way of looking at it

I like that

**Squirt** · 02-21-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by desslock

Well, ok... first of all, all "Arabs" are not a collective hive mind.

Steve United ARAB Emerits (UAE) is what we're talking about... the UNITED Arabs... a COLLECTIVE of Arabs.. for all intensive purposes a HIVE he he

Originally Posted by desslock

Maybe these companies operate ports in numerous countries and they know what they are doing. There is no difference in that than with any other private company offering itself to run a service.

That's a suprisingly naive comment comming from one as knowledgeable as yourself of politics and business.

We can't even patrol our own borders yet we'll trust the UAE with our ports?

Living abroad I've seen how American business has weaseled it's way into every facet of most countries I've visited so far. Through food, technology, entertainment etc. Port control with the UAE is like letting a Texas whore loose on a stud farm.

Asia is extremely powerful, yet difficult to do business with in most ways, yet we open our doors to them and now we're paying the price with the grip China is slowly taking hold on the U.S. financially. Letting the UAE, or any other power player, get a hold on us is asking for trouble.

What are your thoughts?