|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 154:
| 
Feb 21 19:08 UTC 2006 |
All of your "mights" do not address the questions of what are the SPECIFIC
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES of DPW, and how do they differ from those of POSN.
This topic cannot be argued intelligently in the absence of FACTS.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:11 UTC 2006 |
Well boss, I just told you that those safeguards are not PUBLIC.
You're just going to have to think that one through.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:15 UTC 2006 |
Most of them should be public. Only those pertaining to specific security
procedures might have to be secret, but certainly known to DHS. Those are not
what I am concerned about. I want to know about employment and operations.
We have been told that DPW will NOT have any responsibility for security
arrangments. The DHA will............ (ohmigod!).
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:24 UTC 2006 |
*snort*
You want to know if UAE has stricter employment background checks than a GB
firm?
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 154:
|
Feb 21 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Tod, The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and border protection, adn all their
various instermentalities will remain in place. Teh VACIS machines and the
Radiological detectors will still be in place. The port authority, no matter
who they are, will not be able to change that.
That being said, you will still see the same problem of a rich man calling
the local senator adn saying..."Why are you holding up those trucks?! The
trtansportation must flow!"
Where upon the senator will call the Port Director and the Director will call
the Supervisor, adn the supervisor will call the inspectors together adn
say... "Get those trucks moving! Don't you know there is money involved
here?" then wink at them adn send them about their business to ignore what
he said and do their jobs.
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 154:
|
Feb 21 21:46 UTC 2006 |
Um, okay then, Bruce.
|
eprom
|
|
response 31 of 154:
|
Feb 21 22:30 UTC 2006 |
richard's a xenophobe!
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 154:
|
Feb 22 15:38 UTC 2006 |
the point is that after 9/11, homeland security should have implemented a
policy that transitioned control of all u.s. ports to american companies.
as it is, I was told the chinese control some of our ports out on the west
coast.
remember too that the UAE is, like the Saudis, anti-Israel, they do not
recognize Israel's right to exist.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 154:
|
Feb 22 17:29 UTC 2006 |
re #32
Yes, China controls some of the ports out here but at the same time its THEIR
STUFF being imported to Wal*Mart, etc. They've got no interest in importing
terrorism with this mealcard.
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 154:
|
Feb 22 18:54 UTC 2006 |
There is a bipartisan-supported bill making its way through congress, which
senate majority leader bill frist, and others support, which would make it
illegal to allow foreign countries to buy control of u.s. ports without
congressional approval. This would shoot down the Dubai deal. Bush is
promising to veto it.
New York, New Jersey and Florida are all suing to stop the deal. This is
getting nasty.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 154:
|
Feb 22 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Any non-Jew states involved? ;)
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 154:
|
Feb 22 19:18 UTC 2006 |
This is a statement from Bill Frist, the republican senate majority
leader:
February 21st, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today made the following statement on the deal proposed
by Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates that would give the
company day-to-day management of six major U.S. sea ports:
"Recent reports that a company based in the Middle East is seeking to
purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports raise serious
questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland. The decision
to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the Administration
conducts a more extensive review of this matter.
"It is important for Congress be involved in this process. I have
requested a detailed briefing on this deal.
"If the Administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing
legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision
gets a more thorough review.
"This is not the first time questions have been raised about the Executive
Branch's review process, led by th̃se Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States, for these types of transactions. These deals could
have a major impact on America's security, the protection of which is our
greatest responsibility. The CFIUS process needs to be more transparent
and include a role for Congress that includes reviewing these deals, and
possibly voiding them if necessary."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 154:
|
Feb 22 20:26 UTC 2006 |
There was a representative of an anti-terrorism consulting firm on Countdown
last night, who called the fears of terrorism problems from the UAE
"canards". His point was that if terrorists want to infiltrate the port
operation, they can do it just as easily without UAE as with.
What still is not being discussed in this whole affair is WHY we have (and
have had) foreign corporations managing our ports in the first place. What
are the reasons for this? Are jobs being exported? What are the finances?
I'd like all of these issues to be made clear before getting steamed up about
terrorism fears.
|
richard
|
|
response 38 of 154:
|
Feb 22 20:45 UTC 2006 |
it is a conflict of interest for the Bush administration to have approved this
sale without congressional involvement, because the royal family of UAE has
connections to the Texas oil industry and the Bush family.
|
bru
|
|
response 39 of 154:
|
Feb 22 21:41 UTC 2006 |
NO!
Oil men talk to other oil men! How dare they!
O believe the same arguement has been used against the Saudis.
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 154:
|
Feb 22 22:06 UTC 2006 |
As the arguments should be used against them. They're just as evil as Saddam.
The world would be better off without them. THey pose an imminent threat to
freedom. Why aren't you "concerned about the national security implications
that this could have for the safety of the American people", Bruce?
Are you an enemy of freedom?
I think GW is a shit for suggesting a veto.
Reem Al-Hashimy, the UAE's commercial attache in Washington, told CNN Tuesday
that her country is not offended by the controversy and said it respects the
democratic process at work in the United States.
Why is GW trying to rifle this deal through without any oversight?
(Other than the fact that he's a typical arrogant rich political prick)
|
bru
|
|
response 41 of 154:
|
Feb 23 00:00 UTC 2006 |
Apparently GW wasn't even aware of the sale until earlier this week.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 154:
|
Feb 23 00:02 UTC 2006 |
Then why is he opposed to a review and threatening a veto? A hunch?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 43 of 154:
|
Feb 23 00:52 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: And that doesn't bother you just a little bit?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 44 of 154:
|
Feb 23 02:20 UTC 2006 |
laffo!
|
bru
|
|
response 45 of 154:
|
Feb 23 04:05 UTC 2006 |
apparently the board that approved the sale isn't even reviewed by the senior
advisors, it is delegated to junior staffers.
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 154:
|
Feb 23 06:57 UTC 2006 |
OH, okay then! NEVERMIND! Sell it!
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 154:
|
Feb 23 13:46 UTC 2006 |
Right - that's an argument for some further review before letting this
go through. If GWB wasn't aware of the agreement before it was a done
deal, his veto threat strikes me as a little odd. He hasn't used his
veto power even once.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 48 of 154:
|
Feb 23 17:31 UTC 2006 |
But the times he's threatened to it's been quite disturbing what he
felt he had to take a stand on, e.g. torture..
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 154:
|
Feb 23 17:37 UTC 2006 |
You mean the concentration camps in Gitmo? Yea, he seems a lil possessive
about that lil hobby horse of his.
|