Arabs Operating U.S. Ports...
#62
02-23-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by arrbilly
way way too serious in this thread, so, it's joke time!!
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"How many is a brazillion?"
regards
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"How many is a brazillion?"
regards
What's this board coming to?????
#63
02-23-2006, 07:22 AM
Really Old "Member"
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am not totally up to speed on this one and it is to early in the morning to try to go back and replay all the articles/videos etc. but.....
I have the impression that the UAE company purchased the management contract from the British firm, not the ports themselves. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, there is a pretty big difference.
On the other hand, and I am not happy with this as a voting citizen, it would appear very clear that Bush was not informed of this deal until after it was done. In today's political climate, I find that incredibly bad leadership. Delegating is good in an institution as large as our Government but this is ridiculous in my eyes.
It has also only just been outed that the new head of whatever our Maritime Department is called moved from a senior director position with either the British port company or the UAE one, can't remember now, to that position. Hmmmmm.
Further, and again I do not have the facts to hand, it is speculated that there were some under the table quid pro quo agreements with the UAE folks that I gather have to do with security issues that have nothing to do with the ports themselves.
Off the subject slightly, but I really am concerned about how the country is being led by Bush. It seems fairly well substantiated, for example, that he had to more or less negotiate with Cheney and his people to get Cheney to
make a public statement on the shooting accident. Who is in charge here??
Bill
I have the impression that the UAE company purchased the management contract from the British firm, not the ports themselves. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, there is a pretty big difference.
On the other hand, and I am not happy with this as a voting citizen, it would appear very clear that Bush was not informed of this deal until after it was done. In today's political climate, I find that incredibly bad leadership. Delegating is good in an institution as large as our Government but this is ridiculous in my eyes.
It has also only just been outed that the new head of whatever our Maritime Department is called moved from a senior director position with either the British port company or the UAE one, can't remember now, to that position. Hmmmmm.
Further, and again I do not have the facts to hand, it is speculated that there were some under the table quid pro quo agreements with the UAE folks that I gather have to do with security issues that have nothing to do with the ports themselves.
Off the subject slightly, but I really am concerned about how the country is being led by Bush. It seems fairly well substantiated, for example, that he had to more or less negotiate with Cheney and his people to get Cheney to
make a public statement on the shooting accident. Who is in charge here??
Bill
#65
02-23-2006, 07:35 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is all this concern about "Arabs" in this country. Does any one remember the Oklahoma City bombing. Who orchastrated that bombing. Was it Arabs?
I'm not so sure the content of a story is important to some people. The underlying theme is get rid of Bush. When we start considering facts, the theme doesn't seem as legit.
Now I'm a bit leery about it as well but it is silly to have such a knee jerk reaction without considering all of the facts.
#66
02-23-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally Posted by wittom
...The underlying theme is get rid of Bush....
If he could run again all bets are off but, he is pretty much harmless now.
All he can do is hurt the Right in Nov and again in '08.
Of course the Left will rail against anything Bush is for.
Now the Right can treat him as a pariah, distancing themselves from any issue that could be seen as a political liability.
Congress doesn't have term limits, they have careers to protect.
This happens to all second termers, it's just happening early to George because there is no middle road on these Black and White issues and the issues are huge.
His own words from years ago ring true, "You're either with us or against us."
He has made his bed.
He would have faired much better if he had stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
#67
02-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: INDY BABY!
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"they left the keys to the brand new Porsche would they mind...mmm…well...of course not!"
Since, at this point, we have learned that indeed this was not a Bush conspiracy since he himself the ruler of the free world only learned of it as we the public learned of it that theory is out. The Coast Garud and so on will still handle security.
BUT...
This if the EAU wants this deal so much and they have nothing to hide, in light of what their fellow country men have done in the past, Why would they object to more securitization by an American committee. The committee that initially "completely looked at the risk" has only turned down 1 of like 1500 of these deals since 88', so that says there are worthless. They get paid to f-off.
This deal is about security as many of you have said its not. And is different than many other "COMPANIES" dealing with this because. The EAU Company that will be running the port is OWNED by the EAU in other words its not a private company. Who ever has this contract has Complete and total information of how the function of seaside security works. Yes, the EAU itself is a great ally, but it will be simply easier for Muhamidbaconali to infiltrate this organization because he is a fellow country men and hand the information over to the bad guys.
Next, why in the f is a president standing so pat on something he only learned as you and I did. Does that not show ignorance to anyone but me (the people in my office won't shut up so this is taking forever). All congress is asking for is 45 freakin days to go over the contract. Now it is obvious that the president is aware of how our country works because he knows how long 45 days is in the government, it might as well be a lifetime. But lets say it is 45 days, who is this going to hurt. We have people to explain this to the EAU in a fashion that will help them also understand our concern, again, if they are cool what would 45 days make a difference if they still are guaranteed the contract if the investigation is legit. If they aren't cool of course they don't want this to go on and will blame US racism.
Since, at this point, we have learned that indeed this was not a Bush conspiracy since he himself the ruler of the free world only learned of it as we the public learned of it that theory is out. The Coast Garud and so on will still handle security.
BUT...
This if the EAU wants this deal so much and they have nothing to hide, in light of what their fellow country men have done in the past, Why would they object to more securitization by an American committee. The committee that initially "completely looked at the risk" has only turned down 1 of like 1500 of these deals since 88', so that says there are worthless. They get paid to f-off.
This deal is about security as many of you have said its not. And is different than many other "COMPANIES" dealing with this because. The EAU Company that will be running the port is OWNED by the EAU in other words its not a private company. Who ever has this contract has Complete and total information of how the function of seaside security works. Yes, the EAU itself is a great ally, but it will be simply easier for Muhamidbaconali to infiltrate this organization because he is a fellow country men and hand the information over to the bad guys.
Next, why in the f is a president standing so pat on something he only learned as you and I did. Does that not show ignorance to anyone but me (the people in my office won't shut up so this is taking forever). All congress is asking for is 45 freakin days to go over the contract. Now it is obvious that the president is aware of how our country works because he knows how long 45 days is in the government, it might as well be a lifetime. But lets say it is 45 days, who is this going to hurt. We have people to explain this to the EAU in a fashion that will help them also understand our concern, again, if they are cool what would 45 days make a difference if they still are guaranteed the contract if the investigation is legit. If they aren't cool of course they don't want this to go on and will blame US racism.
#68
02-23-2006, 11:41 AM
Really Old "Member"
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CrAz3D:
Just to keep the dialogue going here and not trying to start a big argument.
I googled some stuff and it seems to work out like this.
The UAE company purchased a number of terminals from the British company. Not the port itself, just terminals. In the case of New York, it was one terminal that represents 15% of the port's volume. The purchases in other ports seems to be about the same kind of deal. The respective Port Authorities of whatever port it is "own" the port but various shipping or holding companies own the actual terminals.
So, I was partly wrong, partly right. And, in that sense, this could be a bit of a tempest in a teapot in real terms.
My concern was/is that the administration should have seen this coming, should have informed the various Governors, Mayors etc. that it was coming and certainly should have kept the President informed. We are talking here about an ally of today that was not such a buddy some years ago and during a period of, to say the least, a lot of suspicion of any Arabic countries motives.
Further of concern to me is that Bush blew up (my words) very shortly after the flap broke and equally shortly after what was apparently a very surface briefing on the subject and basically said **** off to his critics. Many of those critics were apparently operating off of the same bad intel the rest of us were but they still deserved a better hearing than what they got.
Which brings me to the observation that I still have not read anything from the Administration that lays out who is buying what. All of that info is coming from the various Port Authorities, maritime experts and company representatives of other terminal owning companies. Let me just say I am not impressed by the way this is being handled.
Regarding your other comment, remember I said delegation is necessary in such a large organization but political sensitivity is also necessart, We might say in this case that the President was ill served by something like 12 Departments in his Administration. Someone should have raised a flag and they did not. And...it is his Administration.
Just some thoughts.
Bill
Just to keep the dialogue going here and not trying to start a big argument.
I googled some stuff and it seems to work out like this.
The UAE company purchased a number of terminals from the British company. Not the port itself, just terminals. In the case of New York, it was one terminal that represents 15% of the port's volume. The purchases in other ports seems to be about the same kind of deal. The respective Port Authorities of whatever port it is "own" the port but various shipping or holding companies own the actual terminals.
So, I was partly wrong, partly right. And, in that sense, this could be a bit of a tempest in a teapot in real terms.
My concern was/is that the administration should have seen this coming, should have informed the various Governors, Mayors etc. that it was coming and certainly should have kept the President informed. We are talking here about an ally of today that was not such a buddy some years ago and during a period of, to say the least, a lot of suspicion of any Arabic countries motives.
Further of concern to me is that Bush blew up (my words) very shortly after the flap broke and equally shortly after what was apparently a very surface briefing on the subject and basically said **** off to his critics. Many of those critics were apparently operating off of the same bad intel the rest of us were but they still deserved a better hearing than what they got.
Which brings me to the observation that I still have not read anything from the Administration that lays out who is buying what. All of that info is coming from the various Port Authorities, maritime experts and company representatives of other terminal owning companies. Let me just say I am not impressed by the way this is being handled.
Regarding your other comment, remember I said delegation is necessary in such a large organization but political sensitivity is also necessart, We might say in this case that the President was ill served by something like 12 Departments in his Administration. Someone should have raised a flag and they did not. And...it is his Administration.
Just some thoughts.
Bill
#69
02-23-2006, 01:33 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 49 45' 40.76"N 119 10' 12.84"W Sol III
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#70
02-23-2006, 06:27 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: new jersey
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2005fx4
I think its a big deal because one we are at war with some arabs,and two if the deals worth this much money, lets give it to an american company that employs american workers. Then all that money stays right here where it belongs, not in the middle east. Its bad enough we have to pay them for oil.
Oops, wrong quote!
Last edited by jimmy k; 02-23-2006 at 06:31 PM.
#71
02-23-2006, 06:32 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: new jersey
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EnglishAdam
What is the big deal about this?
All it means is that some port operations and managenet function will transfer to another company.
Security at the ports will still be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security regardless of who the operator is.
Some of this is making it sound like every American will be fired and all the new workers will be recruited from the Taliban.
All it means is that some port operations and managenet function will transfer to another company.
Security at the ports will still be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security regardless of who the operator is.
Some of this is making it sound like every American will be fired and all the new workers will be recruited from the Taliban.
Many of my fellow Americans suffer from "Knee-jerk reaction", a serious, but treatable illness. If this was Bill Clinton's idea.... everything would be fine(guaran-freekin-teed).
#73
02-25-2006, 05:41 PM
Really Old "Member"
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CrAz3D:
Beating a dead horse here but what the heck.
Don't take this the wrong way, please, but for 25 years I worked for Volvo and Saab in both their US and International operations. During that time, I lived in Sweden, Peru and Canada in addition to posts in the US and I travelled all over the world constantly.
As such, I picked up a few extra languages and to keep up those language skills, I usually read a dozen or so International newspapers online every week.
So, what more did I find out???
Although the US Press seems intent on linking two words, "Purchased" and "Port" and the Administration Press Releases seem to be doing the same thing, as far as I can determine, this is far, far from what is actually the "Deal".
The UAE company purchased the British company lock stock and barrel.
Included in that purchase were leases, let me capitalize that word, LEASES, on container terminals in 18 countries. I may miss a fact or two here, but bear with me.
A great deal of the world's trade is delivered by container ship where there is no land bridge so to say as between the US and Canada or the US and Mexico.
The US is, nowadays, a relatively minor player in world trade in goods that have to move by ship. We sell airplanes, we sell military equipment, we sell services and so on. Many other countries sell to us capital goods, raw materiels such as oil, toys, clothing and so on that are moved by ship.
As a result of that, they have found it convenient to lease terminals for either their own goods or goods brought into the US by other countries.
As I understand it, it seems that the majority of the container terminals in US ports are leased to companies headquarted in Britain, Denmark, Japan, Korea and perhaps a few other countries. In the case of the UAE, it has been described in many, many foreign newspapers as "a normal business deal"
They are earning billions of petrodollars, they have to invest that money somewhere and this is a good business in the US.
To go to the other side of my comments, it now seems to me that this is the tempest in a teapot I mentioned earlier and the current flap could have easily been avoided if only someone would have thought, "Ports/Arabs" and informed Bush and got the information out ahead of the curve and more than anything, accurate information.
Terminal does not equal port and lease does not equal buy and it could have been so bloody simple.
As a parting remark, and I personally think it is sad, we are getting roundly trashed in the International Press for our knee jerk reaction to bad information.
Hope you enjoy the additional input.
Bill
Beating a dead horse here but what the heck.
Don't take this the wrong way, please, but for 25 years I worked for Volvo and Saab in both their US and International operations. During that time, I lived in Sweden, Peru and Canada in addition to posts in the US and I travelled all over the world constantly.
As such, I picked up a few extra languages and to keep up those language skills, I usually read a dozen or so International newspapers online every week.
So, what more did I find out???
Although the US Press seems intent on linking two words, "Purchased" and "Port" and the Administration Press Releases seem to be doing the same thing, as far as I can determine, this is far, far from what is actually the "Deal".
The UAE company purchased the British company lock stock and barrel.
Included in that purchase were leases, let me capitalize that word, LEASES, on container terminals in 18 countries. I may miss a fact or two here, but bear with me.
A great deal of the world's trade is delivered by container ship where there is no land bridge so to say as between the US and Canada or the US and Mexico.
The US is, nowadays, a relatively minor player in world trade in goods that have to move by ship. We sell airplanes, we sell military equipment, we sell services and so on. Many other countries sell to us capital goods, raw materiels such as oil, toys, clothing and so on that are moved by ship.
As a result of that, they have found it convenient to lease terminals for either their own goods or goods brought into the US by other countries.
As I understand it, it seems that the majority of the container terminals in US ports are leased to companies headquarted in Britain, Denmark, Japan, Korea and perhaps a few other countries. In the case of the UAE, it has been described in many, many foreign newspapers as "a normal business deal"
They are earning billions of petrodollars, they have to invest that money somewhere and this is a good business in the US.
To go to the other side of my comments, it now seems to me that this is the tempest in a teapot I mentioned earlier and the current flap could have easily been avoided if only someone would have thought, "Ports/Arabs" and informed Bush and got the information out ahead of the curve and more than anything, accurate information.
Terminal does not equal port and lease does not equal buy and it could have been so bloody simple.
As a parting remark, and I personally think it is sad, we are getting roundly trashed in the International Press for our knee jerk reaction to bad information.
Hope you enjoy the additional input.
Bill
#75
03-09-2006, 03:50 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Westminster, CO
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/...cnn_topstories
Looks like the Dubai guys are giving up due to the House/Senate bill attempting to block the purchase.
Looks like the Dubai guys are giving up due to the House/Senate bill attempting to block the purchase.