|
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 50 of 154:
| 
Feb 23 20:53 UTC 2006 |
A little more information is oozing out about the port management issue. If
it is to be believed, there would be no change in the management, and no
change in employment. The head of the DPW appears to be an American (or, at
least a person of European descent that speaks American).
I've been arguing that we should get complete information about what affects
this arrangement will have on port management, and what the financial
arrangements are, before screaming about terrorist threats, etc. I am more
likely to oppose the arrangement on economic and managerial grounds, rather
than as a result of people using the terrorism scare.
Much of the world's merchange fleet is registered in outer Mongolia - well,
some small African or Asian countries - why is this not as much of a terrorism
threat? It's the same question.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 154:
|
Feb 23 21:03 UTC 2006 |
There is also informaiton oozing out about John Snow and his previous employer
being DPW. IMPEACH
|
scholar
|
|
response 52 of 154:
|
Feb 23 21:16 UTC 2006 |
Why don't you guys let Americans run your ports?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 53 of 154:
|
Feb 23 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Cause we're too lazy to. ;)
|
tod
|
|
response 54 of 154:
|
Feb 23 22:16 UTC 2006 |
re #52
Think of a loyalty card program like a grocery store. They issue you this
card so they can track your spending habits. This is what the port management
incentives basically boil down to. You can monitor people that compete with
each other and thus leverage your own marketing and wholesale operation
agendas. In the case of the USA, the Administration cuts all budgets unless
it has to do with cranking out military or nation building expansion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 154:
|
Feb 23 23:34 UTC 2006 |
You've got a point there. By outsourcing government operations, the Bush
administration can cut more taxes for the most wealthy.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 154:
|
Feb 23 23:48 UTC 2006 |
Its more about cutting expenses for corporations. Nike had to build its own
port system recently near Los Angeles in order to quicker rifle their product
through the security systems and slow 48 hour turnaround. If that is owned
by a foreign entity then the incentives for backroom special treatment is much
higher with less risk of oversight.
|
bru
|
|
response 57 of 154:
|
Feb 23 23:52 UTC 2006 |
thats a red herring tod. Any management company in the USA that wanted to
run the ports could have purchased this company just as well as the UAE
company did. China runs many west coast ports, that doesn't mean they have
free access in and out of the ports, just that they manage the port and
collect the profit.
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 154:
|
Feb 24 00:33 UTC 2006 |
Should we give our airport traffic control management to UAE, Bruce?
You're going to tell me that managing a port doesn't also include determining
budget and with that the security infrastructure and hiring practices?
That's not a concern to you?
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 154:
|
Feb 24 00:39 UTC 2006 |
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port
operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left
for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin
American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S.
Maritime Administration.
This is seriously conflict of interest, imo. Where is the Ethics Committee?
|
gull
|
|
response 60 of 154:
|
Feb 24 07:56 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:6: I think there's a big difference between a publicly held
foreign company, and a company that's an arm of a foreign government --
especially a repressive monarchy. (Frankly, I don't think *any*
foreign interest running a U.S. port is a great idea, but there are
degrees of badness here.)
What troubles me is that while I oppose this deal for the above
reasons, I feel like some of the other people opposing it are doing it
for racist reasons. That troubles me.
I think Bush should have seen this one coming. He's spent most of his
Presidency trying to keep us frightened of threats from the Middle
East. How did he *think* people would react to a country based there
wanting to take over some of our most vulnerable infrastructure?
|
klg
|
|
response 61 of 154:
|
Feb 24 12:00 UTC 2006 |
Hey. This grex place ain't so bad after all. I mean, with all of the
anti-Arab ethnic profilers. Whodathunk?
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 154:
|
Feb 24 16:24 UTC 2006 |
John Snow is a semite?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 63 of 154:
|
Feb 24 17:49 UTC 2006 |
r61 nice try.
tell us why clinton didn't kill osama in '99, boner.
who was in the camp visiting him?
*hint: dubai port bigshot and about 1/2 of their royal family
betcha they were giving osama money at that little mountain
party.
what current president has MONEY ties to the port
folks in dubai?
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 154:
|
Feb 24 18:49 UTC 2006 |
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters have scheduled a rally in 20 cities
across the United States today in protest of the Bush administration
agreement to allow Dubai Ports World to take over some operations at six US
seaports.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 65 of 154:
|
Feb 24 19:14 UTC 2006 |
today, we are all stevedores!
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 154:
|
Feb 24 19:30 UTC 2006 |
February 23, 2006
Join the Teamsters for .Goodbye Dubai: Secure America.s Ports. rallies at
ports around the country on Friday, February 24, 2006. The rallies will take
place at noon in each of the following cities:
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Charleston, South Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Detroit, Michigan
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Newark, New Jersey
New Bedford, Massachusetts
New Orleans, Louisiana
Norfolk, Virginia
Oakland, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Port Hueneemee, California
Portland, Oregon
Savannah, Georgia
Seattle, Washington
Wilmington, Delaware
Call the Teamsters Port Division at (202) 624-8704 for specific location
information
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 154:
|
Feb 24 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Can anything opposed by the Gangsters... I mean, Teamsters, sorry...
really be so bad for the country?
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 154:
|
Feb 24 20:16 UTC 2006 |
How about your son dying in Baghdad.
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:02 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't aware the Teamsters had a position on American elementary
school kids dying in Baghdad. Are they for that, or against it?
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Depends if you think UAE is a threat to national security.
|
jep
|
|
response 71 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:18 UTC 2006 |
Is Baghdad in the UAE? I thought it was in Iraq.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:26 UTC 2006 |
You know McCarthy's daughter had Down's Syndrome. I think he suffocated her
with a pillow when she was 20 or something like that. He did it for his
country.
|
jep
|
|
response 73 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:40 UTC 2006 |
Someone is sure having a hard time following the conversation.
Could be me, I guess.
|
edina
|
|
response 74 of 154:
|
Feb 24 21:42 UTC 2006 |
Of course it's you. You're a conservative, ergo you are wrong.
;-)
|