First they take our architecture and now they want our port. Lou Dobbs interrupted his daily rant on illegal aliens today to warn America that terrorists are buying our ports. :runaway: Too bad this isn't necessarily the case (it would have made a great, Made-for-TV movie.) This article, originally printed in the Herald, explains how Dubai Port World wants to buy six of America's largest ports including the Port of Miami.

The Miami Herald (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/13882130.htm)


Dubai Deal on Ports Draws Fire

Lawmakers are concerned that a recent sale giving a United Arab Emirates company control over terminals at six American ports, including the Port of Miami-Dade, will jeopardize national security.

Some U.S. lawmakers have called for the White House to reconsider approving the sale of venerable British firm P&O Ports to the government-owned Dubai Port World. P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles half the cargo containers that come through the port.

The Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes officials from the departments of Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, reviewed the $6.8 billion deal for security risks and did not object.

U.S. Rep Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, called the committee ''secretive'' and took his concerns to the Bush Administration.

Foley asked Treasury Secretary John Snow, who chairs the committee, to explain the wisdom of allowing a Middle Eastern country control over parts of six American ports -- Miami, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

''Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11,'' Foley said. ``If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11. Instead, this was done in the dead of night.''

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican who chairs a subcommittee on the Middle East, called for a ''full investigation'' to ensure there are no security concerns.

The security of America's seaports is seen as critical to protecting the nation from a devastating terrorist attack.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection only screen about 5 percent of containerized cargo entering the country for weapons of mass destruction, though it says all containers are reviewed for their threat potential, with containers with unusual manifests being singled out for scrutiny.

The U.S. government considers the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terrorism, but some critics cite the country's history as an operational and financial base for some 9/11 hijackers.

This isn't Dubai Port World's first venture into U.S. business. The deep-pocketed firm's bought CSX World Terminals from Jacksonville-based CSX Corp. for $1.4 billion. That purchase gave the firm terminals worldwide, including a presence at ports in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

Questions about DPW's entry into U.S. ports were first raised by Eller & Co., a Miami stevedoring firm that owns a 25 percent share in POMTOC. Eller asked the U.S. government to stop the sale, approved by British shareholders Monday.

''Our big issue is: 95 percent of our cargo enters through our ports, and only 5 percent is inspected by Customs,'' said Miami attorney Michael Kreitzer, who represents Eller.

A DPW spokesman did not return telephone messages or e-mails from the Associated Press.

The Port of Miami-Dade would still handle overall port security, as would the governments at the five other impacted ports. But DPW would own and operate their terminals, which transfer cargo from ships to trucks or trains.

New York Republican Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, said he urged the White House on to review the case.

''Our ports are so vast, so complicated, they're going to be vulnerable in any event,'' King said. ``Then to have a company from Dubai managing the ports, it just raises a lot of red flags.''

King said he's concerned the review process for foreign companies was put in place ``pre-9/11.''

''I don't know if the Treasury Department is the one that should be making the decision after Sept. 11,'' he said.

This report was supplemented with information from the Associated Press.

Terrorists... you need to clerify that. Sounds good, to bad they cant afford it. :rofl:

Hell what cant they afford? Maybe they will build some cool islands and really tall buildings too :)., Im all for it. Bring on an island shaped like a shell with a 100 story building on it. So what if they want to trade with Iran, smart people trade with everyone and these guys know how to advance their own cause.

Sorry if I was unclear, Lou Dobbs implied that they are terrorists (but he's an idiot). The British report that apparently links them to AL Qaeda has not been confirmed. However, they do still recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan.

But I look at it this way: they're not going to be in complete control of the port and will likely keep the same employees so even if they wanted to, they couldn't ship anything into the U.S. (without causing suspicions.)

So if they want to buy the port, I'm fine with that. Perhaps they'll become more interested in Miami and as a result build us the 100 floor building on a clam shaped island.

Sorry if I was unclear, Lou Dobbs implied that they are terrorists (but he's an idiot). The British report that apparently links them to AL Qaeda has not been confirmed. However, they do still recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan.

But I look at it this way: they're not going to be in complete control of the port and will likely keep the same employees so even if they wanted to, they couldn't ship anything into the U.S. (without causing suspicions.)

So if they want to buy the port, I'm fine with that. Perhaps they'll become more interested in Miami and as a result build us the 100 floor building on a clam shaped island.


Your right, Lou Dobbs is an idiot

So the ports are transferred from one multi-national company to another? This shouldn't be big news. More like politicians feeding off of the public's xenophobia.

So wait, Dubai is part of the U.A.E. or part of something more?. Either way I dont see anything diffrent happening if the buy it or not... Besides getting a piece of the Dow Jones stock. :nuts:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/13901287.htm

Posted on Sat, Feb. 18, 2006
HOMELAND SECURITYPort purchase draws more heatCriticism mounted over the takeover of some American port operations by a government-owned firm from the United Arab Emirates.BY STEVE HARRISONsharrison@MiamiHerald.comTwo Democratic U.S. senators said Friday they will attempt to stop a sale that gives a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates control of significant commercial operations at six American ports -- including the Port of Miami-Dade.
Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey said they will file legislation prohibiting companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States, citing national security dangers. The bill targets the sale of the British firm P&O Ports to Dubai Ports World.
But some maritime and security experts said the DP World deal posed no particular risks and called the pushback political.
''We've worked with Dubai Ports, and their management company is committed to improved security at all of their acquired ports,'' said Kim Petersen, president of Fort Lauderdale-based SeaSecure, a consultant. ``The vast majority of their managers are ex-pats. It's not like you will find Dubai nationals running security or even managing the operation at an American port.''
P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the Port of Miami-Dade. There are two other terminals at the port.
''It's a nonissue,'' said Harlan Ullman, a senior advisor on national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``If someone is going to infiltrate, you can infiltrate an American company as well as anyone else.''
They noted DP World will have an American board of directors for its American operations and must comply with new, tougher worldwide security standards promoted by the U.S. Coast Guard.
LOOKING FOR WEAPONS
To protect the country against weapons of mass destruction being imported in a cargo container, U.S. Customs and Border Protection established programs to flag suspect containers for inspection and has sent teams of inspectors to dozens of ports worldwide to review manifests before ships leave.
But it's estimated only 3-to-5 percent of containers entering the country are scanned, prompting criticism of gaping security holes.
''Our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism. They are both vulnerable targets for attack and venues for smuggling and human trafficking,'' Menendez said. ``We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either.''
Earlier this week, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers expressed concern about the Dubai deal's impact on national security, as well as what some say was the ''secretive'' manner in which a U.S. government committee signed off on the sale.
After the White House defended the sale, saying it had been fully vetted, lawmakers from both parties lobbed more criticism Friday at President Bush, who was visiting the Port of Tampa.
''How can President Bush come to Florida and talk about homeland security when he's outsourcing the security of our ports?'' said Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party. ``The threat to major ports, including those in Tampa and Miami, is real. The United States, not a foreign company, should be responsible for keeping our ports secure.''
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, said she plans to hold a briefing next month with port security experts to review the takeover. Ros-Lehtinen chairs the House subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.
DUBAI IS NOT A FOE
The UAE is considered an ally in the war on terrorism, and the tiny emirate has become one of the few places in the Middle East where freewheeling capitalism has taken root and been successful.
But the emirate's banking system was used by 9-11 hijackers, and the UAE was one of three nations that had recognized the brutal Taliban government in Afghanistan.
DP World is offering no public statement, other than noting the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States had approved the deal. CFIUS reviews foreign investments to make sure they don't endanger American security.
Some lawmakers called for CFIUS to conduct a full, formal 45-day investigation.
The UAE's interest in global ports comes as it prepares for the end of its petroleum reserves.
Its DP World became a major ports operator in 2004 when it bought CSX Terminals, a subsidiary of Jacksonville-based CSX Corp. The former CEO of CSX was U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who left the company for Treasury before the sale.
The Treasury Department is one member of CFIUS, along with Homeland Security, Defense, Commerce, Justice and State departments.
DP World bid $6.8 billion for the venerable British firm Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Navigation Co. in 2005.
It's believed that most of P&O's employees will remain with DP World, and that little will change at the American ports, said Rick Eyerdam, editor of The Florida Shipper.
Port of Miami-Dade executives aren't concerned.
''They are not buying the Port of Miami,'' said Deputy Port Director Khalid Salahuddin. ``They are buying part of one of the operators at the port.''
Miami Herald staff writer Lesley Clark contributed to this report from Washington.

Wow... they're serious...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435262/

Suit filed to block port takeover by Arab firm
Partner at Port of Miami says sale to Dubai company endangers security

Updated: 10:45 p.m. ET Feb. 18, 2006

WASHINGTON - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.

The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an “involuntary partner” with Dubai’s government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and “may endanger the national security of the United States.” It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World’s compliance with American security rules.

A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

Escalating criticism
The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

The Port of Miami is among the nation’s busiest. It is a hub for the nation’s cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited “significant” security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer — internationally respected American shipping executive Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

White House defends approval
The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a “long-standing friend and ally” and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.

President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, Fla., but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.

“We’ve got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America,” Bush said. “I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues.”

One of those mayors, Martin O’Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president’s approval of the ports deal as an “outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision” and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O’Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Task Force on Homeland Security. O’Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O’Malley’s remarks.

9/11 families plan to speak out
In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.

Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE’s history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.

“A lot of families are incensed by this, because you’re talking about the safety of the country,” said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ““We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren’t checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It’s not right.”

LoBiondo’s legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.

“We cannot be lax about our nation’s security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists,” LoBiondo said.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

We didn't let China's CNOOC buy Unocal, but we are letting the UAE buy 6 of our fucking ports????????

Even republicans think Bush is moronic for allowing this, when democrats and republicans on capital hill actually agree on something.....you know it's bad....

Lawmakers at odds over Arab control of ports
Members of Congress, Bush administration disagree on security question

Updated: 7:53 p.m. ET Feb. 20, 2006

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised by an Arab company’s takeover of operations at six major American seaports.

Some lawmakers expressed concern Sunday that the safeguards are insufficient to thwart infiltration of the vital facilities by terrorists.

At issue is the purchase last week of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, or UAE. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the U.S. security review of DP World in various television interviews Sunday.

“We have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security,” Chertoff told Tim Russert on “ Meet the Press .”

The government typically builds in “certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns,” he said, but added that details were classified.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said later he wasn’t as sure.

“I’m aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn’t go to who they hire, or how they hire people,” King told The Associated Press.

“They’re better than nothing, but to me they don’t address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?” King said.

Critics have cited the UAE’s history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 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.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., Continental maintains it will become an “involuntary partner” with Dubai’s government under the sale.

Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said in a statement that company lawyers would have to examine the lawsuit before he could comment on it.

He noted, however, that his company “is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States.”

“We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world,” Seymour said.

Lawmakers from both parties questioned the sale as a possible risk to national security.

“It’s unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history,” Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now,” he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told CBS’ “Face the Nation”:

“It is ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists Friday at the State Department, that it was “the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward.” She pledged to work with Congress because “perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through.”

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

“Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings,” Chertoff told CNN’s “Late Edition.” “We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11188272/

For once, I agree with Bush. This whole thing reminds me of when politicians and the media started claiming that Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda. There was no such link. Having the UAE as an ally could help us greatly. Instead we are going to come off as prejudiced (Islamaphobic?) and ignorant. It won't be long before you see American flags burning in the streets of Dubai.

This article published by the New York Times sums up the new developments of the story.

Bush Threatens to Veto Any Bill to Stop Port Takeover

By DAVID E. SANGER
and ERIC LIPTON
Published: February 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.

Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '

The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.

Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals. The current operator of the six American terminals, P&O Port, is owned by the British company that Dubai Ports World is acquiring. The ports include those in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as New York.

Mr. Frist, in a rare break from the Bush administration, declared that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter."

He added, "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a persistent critic of the administration's actions on port security, said in an interview that "this is now a bipartisan posse chasing the president."

But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But the reasoning did not resonate in Washington, where members of Congress from every end of the political spectrum piled on to condemn the deal and to propose emergency legislation to block it if necessary.

"This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports," Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez and Barbara Boxer said in a letter Tuesday. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.

At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.

"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

"We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis," he added. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."

The acquisition of the British port operator is scheduled to close on March 2. Governors George E. Pataki of New York and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland both said they would do what they could to stop the deal from going through.

Maria ****** contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Paul it was Bush who claimed that iraq had connections with terrorist! not the Media. He also said there where weapons of mass destruction which none have been found. Please Inform yourself before posting...


"MESS"

First we outsource American jobs... Now we outsource ownership of our entryways...

What's next? Outsourcing Government Jobs?

If the fact that UAE owns 7% of the US economy doesn't scare you then I don't know what does...

from nbc nightly news tonight, which covered and talked about the port deal: "two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens, and it is a known fact that the money that funded the attacks came from dubai banks"

as one person in the report said: "its not about them being a middle eastern country, its about them having ties to terrorism."

and one more thing. yes, he can veto legislation... what he forgets, is that congress can override his veto with 2/3 majority. and with even top republicans like Frist saying he'll introduce legislation to prevent the sale, i think overriding a veto is very possible, and will put bush in his place.

First we outsource American jobs... Now we outsource ownership of our entryways...

What's next? Outsourcing Government Jobs?

If the fact that UAE owns 7% of the US economy doesn't scare you then I don't know what does...


how much of other economies do u think the united states owns? how much of mexico do you think we own? we outsource jobs to keep costs low and that money gets pumped back into the economy to create more jobs here...

its a global economy... deal with it... besides golden arches theory will prevent all wars in the future anyways (read lexus and the olive tree if u dont get that)

how much of other economies do u think the united states owns? how much of mexico do you think we own? we outsource jobs to keep costs low and that money gets pumped back into the economy to create more jobs here...

its a global economy... deal with it... besides golden arches theory will prevent all wars in the future anyways (read lexus and the olive tree if u dont get that)

Hmm...Outsourcing does keep costs low, true, but it definately does not generate more jobs in the US, but I would rather spend more money for my goods if i knew that all workers involved in making and getting them to me were actually paid living wages...Its a matter of principle... By outsourcing we pump money into other coutries economies not ours...The US has lost 3 million jobs in the past 3 years and has been in a trade deficit for over 2 decades, all causes for concern...

Paul it was Bush who claimed that iraq had connections with terrorist! not the Media. He also said there where weapons of mass destruction which none have been found. Please Inform yourself before posting...


"MESS"

This is what I posted:
For once, I agree with Bush. This whole thing reminds me of when politicians and the media started claiming that Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda. There was no such link. Having the UAE as an ally could help us greatly. Instead we are going to come off as prejudiced (Islamaphobic?) and ignorant. It won't be long before you see American flags burning in the streets of Dubai.

I never said Bush didn't say that Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda. In fact, he stated it clearly in one of his State of the Union addresses. I was comparing the current situation (in which the media is claiming the UAE is connected to Al Qaeda) to when the media claimed that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda three years ago (and they did so long after it was disproved.) If I had compared these two events with respect to Bush, they would have been opposites because Bush considers the UAE an ally not an enemy.

Also, I want to make one distinction now: although people in the UAE may have partially funded terrorist activities, the UAE did not fund any. Authorities have found American funders of Al Qaeda, but the US is in no way a funder of Al Qaeda. The UAE has been helpful in locating terrorists within its boundaries and has not incited violence like most other Arab countries. Its track record is clean.

And Last, the coast gaurd will still be in charge of checking containers so it will be no easier for weapons to be imported than it already is. No jobs will be outsourced because the only thing that is changing is the ownership which is currently located in Britain.

Paul it was Bush who claimed that iraq had connections with terrorist! not the Media. He also said there where weapons of mass destruction which none have been found. Please Inform yourself before posting... "MESS"Allow me to suggest a book. It was written in 1999. After the FIRST World Trade Center Bombing, but BEFORE the second World Trade Center bombing.
Written by a British author, Simon Reeves, this book clearly outlined how the Al Queada network was set up and how there were ties to Iraq. I am not making this up. I read the book.
Please Inform yourself before posting.
Hmmmmmmm.....
Please read "The New Jackals". For the younger forum goers, you may not be familar with "Carlos the Jackal", but he was the undisputed heavyweight scumbag terrorists. Reeves predicted that if something proactive on the part of the USA didn't happen, the "Jackals" would strike the US again.
Hmmmm.....I read the book in 2000. Reeves was right.

First we outsource American jobs... Now we outsource ownership of our entryways...

What's next? Outsourcing Government Jobs?

If the fact that UAE owns 7% of the US economy doesn't scare you then I don't know what does...Oh! I'll tell what is REALLY scarey! The Japanese bought Pebble Beach Golf course and Rockerfeller Center and all the monuments in USA!!!! Head for the hills!!!
The politicians told us that Japan was taking over the world. Now that is scary to the untrained mind.
Reality check.
The Japanese investors paid like $600 million for Rockerfeller center and lost their asses on the investment. They made several similar bad investments.
The headlines read "Japan is taking over the world" when my headline would have read "Sucka's from overseas pay way too much and will lose their asses in a couple of years...don't panic!"
Unless you are a politician (or manipulated by one) it doesn't matter who owns the company that manages the port.
The Libs are yappin' that foreign investment TO the USA is bad.
How good is our memory?
Didn't they say that US investment FROM the USA is bad in the last election?
Hmmm....
Sorry to be thinking...but if "offshoring" is bad during the election, then why is "onshoring" bad too??
Thank goodness most of the people in the SSC forum are intelligent people and can see through that clearly politically motivated diatribe.

First we outsource American jobs... Now we outsource ownership of our entryways...

What's next? Outsourcing Government Jobs?

If the fact that UAE owns 7% of the US economy doesn't scare you then I don't know what does...Oh! I'll tell what is REALLY scarey! The Japanese bought Pebble Beach Golf course and Rockerfeller Center and all the monuments in USA!!!! Head for the hills!!!
The politicians told us that Japan was taking over the world. Now that is scary to the untrained mind. (I was studying in Japan in 1989...No way they were taking over the world! Even though the front cover of TIME and NEWSWEEK reported that to be true).
Reality check.
The Japanese investors paid like $600 million for Rockerfeller center and lost their asses on the investment. They made several similar bad investments.
The headlines read "Japan is taking over the world" when my headline would have read "Sucka's from overseas pay way too much and will lose their asses in a couple of years...don't panic!"
Unless you are a politician (or manipulated by one) it doesn't matter who owns the company that manages the port.
The Libs are yappin' that foreign investment TO the USA is bad.
How good is our memory?
Didn't they say that US investment FROM the USA is bad in the last election?
Hmmm....
Sorry to be thinking...but if "offshoring" is bad during the election, then why is "onshoring" bad too??
Thank goodness most of the people in the SSC forum are intelligent people and can see through what is a clearly politically motivated diatribe.

The US has lost 3 million jobs in the past 3 years and has been in a trade deficit for over 2 decades, all causes for concern...I disagree.
No cause for concern.
The US is lucky to be able to send jobs overseas. It gives American free time to share information, moderate forums (hint, hint), and facillitate the free flow of information to allow us to be more productive. Productivity and innovation are American hallmarks.
In some countries, they use 500 people to build a small building. In Miami, it takes 500 to build a 50 story skyscraper! Send the jobs somewhere else...I don't want to work 14 hours a day...I want to have so much excess leisure time that I might sit on my arse and moderate a forum!!! (with all do respect, and appreciation that you do a great job! :cheers: )

Actually americans work more hours a year than any other nation (even Japan). Oh and I dont worry about Japan taking over the world. Their population is declining rapidly due to low fertility rates and their dependency ratio is expected to climb rapidly. The amount of money going to welfare is going to be huge. Anyhow I dont care if people from Dubai purchase the Port of Miami. Wasn't it owned by an English company before? It was foreign owned before and and will continue to be foreign owned. No big deal really.

Actually americans work more hours a year than any other nation (even Japan). Oh and I dont worry about Japan taking over the world. Their population is declining rapidly due to low fertility rates and their dependency ratio is expected to climb rapidly. The amount of money going to welfare is going to be huge. Anyhow I dont care if people from Dubai purchase the Port of Miami. Wasn't it owned by an English company before? It was foreign owned before and and will continue to be foreign owned. No big deal really.

I guess I agree with you DGM, I could care less who owns it. I doubt it would make it any less or more safe. It does show bush in a light many of us have seen for years though, beholden to big money..including rich middle easterners.

roark you said to pick up a book how about the bush family album with many pictures of the bin ladden family spread out through its pages... you want ties with terrorist you dont have to leave the state of texas to find some...

from nbc nightly news tonight, which covered and talked about the port deal: "two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens, and it is a known fact that the money that funded the attacks came from dubai banks"

as one person in the report said: "its not about them being a middle eastern country, its about them having ties to terrorism."


I must commend "excellent" logical and analytical skills of that person you have enthusiastically quoted. Lets see. Two of millions of UAE citizens turned out to be terrorists. And those terrorists used a bank in Dubai to send money to the US. Therefore, the conclusion is that the whole country must be terrorist! I wonder why that person stopped drawing his conclusion right there. What about the US bank where that money came -in-? Or the US immigration official who issued them the visa? Or the US agent who issued airline tickets? Or the US clerk who rented them the car? Or the bartender who served them the drinks? Or the barber who cut their hair? Or the doctor who made sure they stayed healthy enough for their act? Or the nurse who delivered them into this world?

Two of US citizens committed a terrorist act in Oklahoma City. They must have bank accounts in US banks too. Ask that person in the report if we should therefore conclude that US has ties to terrorism too.

I highly doubt that this company spent years building up their business, expanded it all over the world, hired thousands of people and spent billions of dollars just to sneak in a couple of terrorists!

I must commend "excellent" logical and analytical skills of that person you have enthusiastically quoted. Lets see. Two of millions of UAE citizens turned out to be terrorists. And those terrorists used a bank in Dubai to send money to the US. Therefore, the conclusion is that the whole country must be terrorist! I wonder why that person stopped drawing his conclusion right there. What about the US bank where that money came -in-? Or the US immigration official who issued them the visa? Or the US agent who issued airline tickets? Or the US clerk who rented them the car? Or the bartender who served them the drinks? Or the barber who cut their hair? Or the doctor who made sure they stayed healthy enough for their act? Or the nurse who delivered them into this world?

Two of US citizens committed a terrorist act in Oklahoma City. They must have bank accounts in US banks too. Ask that person in the report if we should therefore conclude that US has ties to terrorism too.

I highly doubt that this company spent years building up their business, expanded it all over the world, hired thousands of people and spent billions of dollars just to sneak in a couple of terrorists!
Moderator: Senator Dukakis rebuttle?
Dukakis: I still can't believe im losin' to this guy...

lol, still makes me laugh. "Enthusiastically" reported... good one. Ok, four things.
1) I really don't care about this anymore. I thought i did once, but no.
2) Everything you just said, especially the part about Oklahoma, was realized about 10 minutes after i posted.
3) Seattle... Miami. Miami... Seattle. Unless you lived, are living, plan on living here or just plan like miami, concern yourself with issues with your own port. Stay on your side of the country. Yes, just sit back in your chair while its pouring rain outside, surfing the web on Internet Explorer while using Windows XP and sipping your nice tall cup of Starbucks of whatever you ordered.

lastly
4) The Seahawks didn't win the Superbowl.

Moderator: Senator Dukakis rebuttle?
Dukakis: I still can't believe im losin' to this guy...

lol, still makes me laugh. "Enthusiastically" reported... good one. Ok, four things.
1) I really don't care about this anymore. I thought i did once, but no.
2) Everything you just said, especially the part about Oklahoma, was realized about 10 minutes after i posted.
3) Seattle... Miami. Miami... Seattle. Unless you lived, are living, plan on living here or just plan like miami, concern yourself with issues with your own port. Stay on your side of the country. Yes, just sit back in your chair while its pouring rain outside, surfing the web on Internet Explorer while using Windows XP and sipping your nice tall cup of Starbucks of whatever you ordered.

lastly
4) The Seahawks didn't win the Superbowl.

Three things from me...

1: You brought up Seattle's port. It is being managed by a company based in Singapore. I hear it is illegal in Singapore to chew gum and pee in elevators. It's 'bout time we in Seattle finally lash out at the government for letting our port being run by a country with such gross violations of human rights :laugh:

2: I am not planning to move to Miami but I have been there and loved it! My favorite city indeed! I would rather be sitting in my chair by the beach, or surfing the waves, and sipping a nice tall glass of a tropical drink.

Lastly,
3: Seahawk may be out, but down. They are gonna be back! :rock:

Peace! :okay:

You can't pee in elevators in Singapore?! Any country that doesn't grant you your God given right to take a wiz while waiting for your floor should be sanctioned immediately!

Seriously though, it doesn't matter what country owns the port because they are not in charge of security. The real issue is that since 9/11 little or no advances have been made in port security. Currently, only 5% of cargo is searched. Hypethetically, if two warheads are sent to America in seperate containers, then the chance that both will be found is 1 in 400. I don't like those odds one bit.

The only reason this story is getting so much media coverage is because 2006 is an ellection year so politicians are trying to distance themselves from Bush who's approval rating is at an all time low.

You can't pee in elevators in Singapore?! Any country that doesn't grant you your God given right to take a wiz while waiting for your floor should be sanctioned immediately!

Seriously though, it doesn't matter what country owns the port because they are not in charge of security. The real issue is that since 9/11 little dvances have been made in port security. Currently, only 5% of cargo is searched. Hypethetically, if two warheads are sent to America in seperate containers, then the chance that both will be found is 1 in 400. I don't like those odds one bit.

The only reason this story is getting so much media coverage is because 2006 is an ellection year so politicians are trying to distance themselves from Bush who's approval rating is at an all time low.

I agree with your analysis. Regardless of who is managing port operations, the security detail at our ports needs lot of work. Security at airports used to be pretty lax too, but that has of course changed since 9/11. In a way, that's little sad too since after returning to US from countries where airports are guarded as fortresses, I truly felt that I arrived at a free country. Not many countries let everyone walk as far as the jetway, as the US used too. That has now reversed. Flying into US now almost feels as if I am going to visit an inmate a jail!

Anyways, regarding the ports, I also believe its all about politics.

Basically Dubai Port World is going to "transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity" (Halliburton?). This, coming from Senator John Warner on the senate floor today. Since this story is still in its preliminary stages, there are still many questions to be answered, like: What U.S. entity will take over? and Why didn’t DP World release the information itself?

Here's an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030901144.html) that explains the new development in detail. Sorry for posting such a long article…but it had to be done.

Dubai Port Company to Divest Itself of American Holdings

By Jonathan Weisman and Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 1:57 PM

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would "transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity." Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests "in an orderly fashion" so as not to suffer "economic loss."

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

The GOP leaders gave Bush their assessment of where the deal stood at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Although the gathering was a regularly scheduled meeting, according to Call, it was significant because it came only one day after lawmakers took their first formal steps toward killing Dubai Ports World's acquisition of a British-owned company.

The administration had repeatedly said it would veto any attempts to crush the deal, arguing that port security is in the hands of U.S. agencies and would not be put in jeopardy by the takeover. Americans have reacted viscerally to the deal, lawmakers say, driving Congress towards a confrontation with the White House.

"We want to protect the American people," said House Speaker Sen. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). "We've been doing it the last four and a half years. We fought a war in Iraq, fought a war in Afghanistan, stood up to the Homeland Security Department. We will continue to do that. We will maybe have our differences, but we think we're going to continue to" oppose the Dubal deal," he said Thursday morning.

The House Appropriations Committee Wednesday added a measure to block the deal to a must-pass war-funding bill. The vote on the bill was 62-2. A full House vote on the bill is expected to pass overwhelmingly next week.

A knowledgeable Senate aide said the GOP leaders told Bush Thursday that they may be able to stave off a vote today in the Senate to kill the ports deal, but they won't be able to hold it back forever.

Senate Democrats continued to demand a vote on the issue, while Senate Republicans have been hoping they could prevent a vote until the end of a 45-day review of the deal.

The ports deal has sparked an unusual, election-year Republican mutiny against the Bush administration over an issue the president has tried to make his own -- the war on terrorism.

The confrontation over the Dubai-owned company's acquisition of management operations at six major ports, including Baltimore, New Orleans and New York, has more than any other issue in recent years been driven by constituents anxious about terrorism, the war in Iraq and illegal immigration and foreign encroachment, lawmakers say.

Add to that the president's rock-bottom approval ratings and there may have been little the White House could do to beat back the issue.

White House officials have not backed down in the face of the brewing revolt, however. At the same time the GOP leadership was meeting with Bush, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeated Bush's vow to veto any legislation that interferes with the deal. He has made clear the president's position is unchanged.

Republican lawmakers said yesterday that obstinacy has only fueled the rebellion. And GOP members of all ranks objected to the White House's handling of an issue that has proved to be a gift for Democrats.

For Democrats, the issue may be a political windfall, even if Republicans side with them in a confrontation with the White House. About 70 percent of Americans oppose the port deal, and that opposition does not change if they are told port managers do not control security at the ports.

Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling organization, released a memo yesterday saying the Dubai port issue has helped drive down Bush's approval ratings, particularly on national security matters and especially among Republic voters.

The issue appears headed in one of two directions -- a veto confrontation between the president and Congress or a decision by the company to abandon its takeover plans.