Arab Emerates taking over the shipping ports
02-20-2006, 06:49 AM
#17
It's my pot and I'll stir it if I want to. If you're not careful, I'll stir your's as well!
Originally Posted by j-fox
The U.S. has become a service type economy rather than a producer. We need more products than we make so thus the need to import.
We let our leaders create/allow this for 50 years!!
Now we can't even service our own ports.
Thus the need to outsource this service.
VERY SCARY!!!!
What is the answer?
We let our leaders create/allow this for 50 years!!
Now we can't even service our own ports.
Thus the need to outsource this service.
VERY SCARY!!!!
What is the answer?
02-20-2006, 06:58 AM
#18
Registered User
Originally Posted by Mexstan
Are you aware that more than 10,000 students from Osama bin Laden's homeland are attending U.S. colleges and universities this year, thanks to an agreement between President Bush and King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz.
Because of the agreement, as many as 25,000 Saudi students are expected to arrive over the next five years, with all their bills paid by the Saudi government.
The bottom line is; expect more American's to lose jobs to the Arabs in your own country.
Because of the agreement, as many as 25,000 Saudi students are expected to arrive over the next five years, with all their bills paid by the Saudi government.
The bottom line is; expect more American's to lose jobs to the Arabs in your own country.
Them coming from the land where Bin Laden was born should not lead to prejudice IMO, and the US constitution also has some nice points about race, creed and religion.
So now some folks cry out loud because private property is sold to other private parties on a liberal market. In this case the buyer was the best bidder.
The alternative would be a government regulated economy- either communist type (we know how this works in the meantime) or oligarchy (where the petro $$$ would deal really nice cards for the Arabs)
Sometimes I think the west has simply become too fat and lazy to compete, and now it will get back what it has touted about for the last 50 years- free global economy, survival of the fittest etc.
Lean back and enjoy the show!
AlpineRAM
02-20-2006, 07:32 AM
#19
It's my pot and I'll stir it if I want to. If you're not careful, I'll stir your's as well!
Originally Posted by j-fox
VERY SCARY!!!!
What is the answer?
What is the answer?
When Nobody did it Everybody got angry because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought that Somebody would do it but Nobody realized that Nobody would do it.
So it ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done in the first place.
02-20-2006, 07:58 AM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: sittin in the mitten
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
between our southern border problems; no respect for OUR nation, NAFTA, base closures and such. Contractors are already crippling our military with their double charge for everything they do, and then twice that to do it right (like a dodge dealer).
When is enough, enough!
Don't we have federal agencies for port security? A coast guard? TSA? DHS?
While we are fighting for freedom , THEY are fighting a holy war.
It really is time to close the door and put the military on the borders (and ports)
When is enough, enough!
Don't we have federal agencies for port security? A coast guard? TSA? DHS?
While we are fighting for freedom , THEY are fighting a holy war.
It really is time to close the door and put the military on the borders (and ports)
02-20-2006, 10:57 AM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out sourcing, out sourcing, out sourcing.
Not exactly on the topic, but close to it:
In November 04 when my son got back from Iraq, my wife and I went to be there for the homecoming. To get on base we had to go through some procedures, security and all, which is normal. What scared me was that it was not military personnel, but a PRIVATE contractor that was doing it and general base security. In other words our own soldiers can't even protect themsevles? Of course not, but it does look awfull, to me at least. So, am I surprised? NO. We are selling our souls, and our children for the sake of better profits.
Not exactly on the topic, but close to it:
In November 04 when my son got back from Iraq, my wife and I went to be there for the homecoming. To get on base we had to go through some procedures, security and all, which is normal. What scared me was that it was not military personnel, but a PRIVATE contractor that was doing it and general base security. In other words our own soldiers can't even protect themsevles? Of course not, but it does look awfull, to me at least. So, am I surprised? NO. We are selling our souls, and our children for the sake of better profits.
02-20-2006, 01:50 PM
#22
It's my pot and I'll stir it if I want to. If you're not careful, I'll stir your's as well!
Chertoff Defends UAE Port Deal
Monday, February 20, 2006
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.
Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.
Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."
That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O, saying that U.S. agencies can not guarantee DP World will comply with U.S. security rules.
The deal "may endanger the national security of the United States," reads the suit filed late Friday.
DP World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi Arabian peninsula. The State Department calls the UAE an ally in the War on Terror, but critics note that the Arab nation had ties to the terrorists prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and one terrorist, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in that country.
Opponents of the deal also argue that the FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
"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," Graham said.
Added Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."
But Chertoff said the UAE-owned firm is well-known to the United States. Several top executives in the agency are American-born.
"We have dealt with this port operator in Dubai for years because many of our port security operations don't begin when you hit American territory; they actually begin at the port of embarkation. So we don't write with a clean slate. We have a lot of experience in general with overseas port operations when we make these decisions," the secretary said.
The two companies involved in the $6.8 billion sale agreed that U.S. government approval is required for the deal to go through. Chertoff said the review by the 12-member CFIUS, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow and involves members from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, was done in secret with no congressional oversight.
Chertoff said Congress is welcome to look into the sale in classified briefings.
"Without getting into the specifics of this particular classified discussion, I can tell you that the process is designed for Congress to be rigorous and to make sure we properly take into the account of security when we approve any transaction," he said.
Last week, seven lawmakers from both major parties and both chambers of Congress asked the Treasury to take the additional unused two weeks authorized in its 45-day review period to look more closely at the agency. The legislators said they are considering other options to expand review of the sale before the deal is complete.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said he has asked House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., to hold hearings on the transaction, and to get CFIUS' rationale for the decision. A Senate oversight hearing is also planned for later this month.
On Saturday, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he will further monitor the deal to make sure DP World "complies with all U.S. port security laws and that our nation’s security is not jeopardized by this recent business merger.”
On Sunday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said legislation he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., are sponsoring would prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the United States. He added that Chertoff's comments show that the administration "just does not get it" when it comes to balancing security against business interests.
"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the seven lawmakers who last week said they were looking into additional oversight of the sale, appeared Sunday in New York with family members of Sept. 11 terror victims to protest the sale.
The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said
In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.
DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The government in Dubai is also trying to lobby port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer, American shipping executive Edward H. Bilkey, is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
FOX News' Julie Kirtz and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Monday, February 20, 2006
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.
Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.
Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."
That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O, saying that U.S. agencies can not guarantee DP World will comply with U.S. security rules.
The deal "may endanger the national security of the United States," reads the suit filed late Friday.
DP World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi Arabian peninsula. The State Department calls the UAE an ally in the War on Terror, but critics note that the Arab nation had ties to the terrorists prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and one terrorist, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in that country.
Opponents of the deal also argue that the FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
"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," Graham said.
Added Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."
But Chertoff said the UAE-owned firm is well-known to the United States. Several top executives in the agency are American-born.
"We have dealt with this port operator in Dubai for years because many of our port security operations don't begin when you hit American territory; they actually begin at the port of embarkation. So we don't write with a clean slate. We have a lot of experience in general with overseas port operations when we make these decisions," the secretary said.
The two companies involved in the $6.8 billion sale agreed that U.S. government approval is required for the deal to go through. Chertoff said the review by the 12-member CFIUS, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow and involves members from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, was done in secret with no congressional oversight.
Chertoff said Congress is welcome to look into the sale in classified briefings.
"Without getting into the specifics of this particular classified discussion, I can tell you that the process is designed for Congress to be rigorous and to make sure we properly take into the account of security when we approve any transaction," he said.
Last week, seven lawmakers from both major parties and both chambers of Congress asked the Treasury to take the additional unused two weeks authorized in its 45-day review period to look more closely at the agency. The legislators said they are considering other options to expand review of the sale before the deal is complete.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said he has asked House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., to hold hearings on the transaction, and to get CFIUS' rationale for the decision. A Senate oversight hearing is also planned for later this month.
On Saturday, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he will further monitor the deal to make sure DP World "complies with all U.S. port security laws and that our nation’s security is not jeopardized by this recent business merger.”
On Sunday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said legislation he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., are sponsoring would prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the United States. He added that Chertoff's comments show that the administration "just does not get it" when it comes to balancing security against business interests.
"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the seven lawmakers who last week said they were looking into additional oversight of the sale, appeared Sunday in New York with family members of Sept. 11 terror victims to protest the sale.
The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said
In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.
DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The government in Dubai is also trying to lobby port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer, American shipping executive Edward H. Bilkey, is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
FOX News' Julie Kirtz and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
02-20-2006, 02:35 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southwest TX, BFE
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL PEOPLE!!! This is just the beginning, but do we really have to wait til a container (one out of tens of thousands that come into U.S. ports every day) comes in with a nuclear device and destroys a major city??? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. And, if you haven't taken a look at the positioning of the ports, our entire Eastern side of the country will become accessible. It amazes me how little we care about the safety of this nation. And, this is just the beginning. The Chinese are NOT just making clothes, shoes, and televisions over there. They've started a military buildup that is the next biggest threat this country will face. In a pentagon report, released last week, the Pentagon has pointed towards China as the most serious threat to our national security. Their intelligence has brought forth some alarming details. In the last 10 years, China has been actively building up it's military but in the last 2 it's doubled it's efforts (37% increase in 2005). Reports show that Beijing is now working on a 6-engine supersonic bomber as well as 2 new ballistic missiles that will be able to deliver nuclear weapons worldwide. Just last week, Google Earth satellite photos revealed a yet unseen port for China's newest nuclear submarine. The photos were found by a private watchdog group, not our own intelligence community. Now, with the port problem, this newest threat to our homeland is the most severe of all. They may be our allies RIGHT NOW, but what happens if there's a falling out?? If something were to happen, guess where an invading force would be poised to strike?? What if their intentions are not only to establish themselves as a business interest in this country? There's too much money and too much outside influence in that part of the world to let a country like that take any control of anything here. If you call yourselves Americans then you will raise hell about this, cause I surely WILL!!! And, if this makes you the least bit mad, 
the next time you need to buy something, DON'T go to WAL-MART, buy AMERICAN for the sake of the future of this country. WAL-MART sided with 6 Chinese companies in a recent lawsuit brought against the Chinese companies for flooding U.S. markets with cheap televisions. A well respected U.S. television manufacturer in North Carolina has since gone out of business because they couldn't compete. If a so-called American company (WAL-MART) is going to side with the Chinese, then lets show them who's side WE'RE on. The only reason ports are of such significance right now is because we've become dependant on them for EVERYTHING we buy. Let's stop it NOW, before everything else becomes as valuable as OIL!!!
the next time you need to buy something, DON'T go to WAL-MART, buy AMERICAN for the sake of the future of this country. WAL-MART sided with 6 Chinese companies in a recent lawsuit brought against the Chinese companies for flooding U.S. markets with cheap televisions. A well respected U.S. television manufacturer in North Carolina has since gone out of business because they couldn't compete. If a so-called American company (WAL-MART) is going to side with the Chinese, then lets show them who's side WE'RE on. The only reason ports are of such significance right now is because we've become dependant on them for EVERYTHING we buy. Let's stop it NOW, before everything else becomes as valuable as OIL!!!
02-20-2006, 02:42 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am extremely worried that our government would even entertain the notion of Muslims controlling our East Coast ports. I've never written a congressman but this has me so worried I'm going to write and write and write.
Chertoff wants assurances this deal won't affect homeland security? Let me tell you something. The Koran like the bible says "thou shalt not kill". However, the Koran offers one exception: Infidels. Guess what? They consider us infidels! So if the Iran situation blows up or some other unforeseen situation arises and all the Muslims align against us they can shut down the ports! Or with them in controll and having intmate knowledge of security measures can bypass them and slip a nuke in to philly which is a short hope to NYC. The bottom line is they hate us! We're undermining everything by giving them control. I still can't beleive it.
Chertoff wants assurances this deal won't affect homeland security? Let me tell you something. The Koran like the bible says "thou shalt not kill". However, the Koran offers one exception: Infidels. Guess what? They consider us infidels! So if the Iran situation blows up or some other unforeseen situation arises and all the Muslims align against us they can shut down the ports! Or with them in controll and having intmate knowledge of security measures can bypass them and slip a nuke in to philly which is a short hope to NYC. The bottom line is they hate us! We're undermining everything by giving them control. I still can't beleive it.
02-20-2006, 04:18 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the mitten
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been preaching the theme" buy American" and stop exporting Our jobs for the past twenty years...to no avail. Well it has come down to our national security and now everybodys up in arms. Maybe this the straw that borke the camels back. No pun intended. It is about time that we took charge of Our jobs, Our economy and Our country. I don't need any politican telling whats good for me. I know whats good for me and my country. This latest deal is an absolute outrage. Where do the righties stand on this or will they blindly defend this administration on the out sourcing of our national security as well.
Jim
Jim
02-20-2006, 04:58 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ingleside, Tx.
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060...2147-5104r.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060220...s_060220133157
Two good articles on the subject. And who is this idiot Karen Hughes?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060220...s_060220133157
Two good articles on the subject. And who is this idiot Karen Hughes?
