United Arab Emirates company to oversee six U.S. ports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

I don't know...how about taking all the welfare folks (those that don't have a legitimate medical need) and give them training and jobs patroling the border, etc? That seems a better investment all around.

---

Great idea, let's give a bunch of crack heads the job of patrolling the border. Seriously though, certainly not all, but the majority of welfare recipients have no desire to work, training or not. I really don't think entrusting them with the country's security is our best bet.

Anyhow, I read where Bush has stated that this(UAE taking over the ports) will happen and that he will veto any attempt by congress to stop it.This is a perfect example of what has always scared me about Bush. He does what he wants, following his own agenda, no matter what the rest of the world, or in this case the rest of his own country, thinks. "I want war with Iraq so I'll lie in order to get it." "I want to do wire taps. I'm the President and I say it's not illegal". " I want Arabs to have control of our ports, I'm the President so fuck off if you don't like it" . What is this idiot going to do next?

This is taken from another forum I am on a lot. It's how a friend of mine over on that site explained it...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would some feel if they were not responsible for security but were given a contract to manage the employees performing screening at our airports? Or is that a bad analogy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only way I can make the Airport analogy work for me is:

Petrol Management, LLC, who manages the bagage facility at RIC airport via lease. (Petrol, LLC has no control over what Fomer gmc packs in his bagage, nor has any control over the Airport Security that checks the bagage that Former brings to be loaded onto the plane by Petrol Management, LLC

Petrol Management, LLC is whoally owned by the Brittish company, North Sea, Ltd....
which is purchased by PursianGulfMoneyUnlimited...
as part of the deal, PursianGulfMoneyUnlimited will not have any control over what Fomer gmc packs in his bagage, nor have any control over the Airport Security that checks the bagage that Former brings to be loaded onto the plane by Petrol Management, LLC

The FAA will still control all of the air traffic at RIC

The CIA & FBI have no problem with security as the new owner has proven to be a great partner in the War on Terror

The VA State Police, Henrico County Police, RIC airport authority security and the Federal bagage inspectors have no problem with the deal as they will still be providing security

What's Left maybe the union is a bit worried that the new owner of North Sea, Ltd. will force North Sea Ltd. to pressure Petrol Management, LLC to renogociate labor contracts maybe they know that their representitives in government are great at spreading fear & panic, even if it means being racist against the new arab owners of North Sea Ltd.

I do admit to be going though a bit of a learning curve and haven't yet etched my decision in stone...



Anyway, as of yet, I just really don't see the same threat of many of those opposed to it. As I see it, we are talking about, is not even to the level of a corporate takeover... A bidding war has been on-going for the Brittish company for about a year... a company that already holds the leases...

DPW of the UAE was the successful bidder.

The UAE has been a pretty good partner with us... If we don't trust them to manage the company that manages the transfer of our bagage, why are we trusting them with the management of ports around the world from which we have recieved billions of tons of cargo, let alone the resupply of our warships

BTW, I don't agree with welfare for those that just choose not to work. hmmm how much money would that save the taxpayer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

While I certainly disagree with Bush on his immigration/border policies I don't see any hard plans from the Dem's either. I think it has much to do with political correctness.

I don't know...how about taking all the welfare folks (those that don't have a legitimate medical need) and give them training and jobs patroling the border, etc? That seems a better investment all around.

---

You're right, the dems have no plan for border security but they are not the ones in power right now and mr. protect america from terrorists is more concerned about cheap labor, which drives down wages/salaries for everyone in the country, then he is about protecting the borders and jobs for americans and has no plans to crack down on the people/companies that are hiring all of the illegal workers in the first place.

I'm just tired of the Dem's complaining while not offering solutions.


As to immigration and the jobs issues? A good step would to be to start actually enforcing the laws already in place. No administration in my lifetime has handled this well. I was hoping Bush would finally draw a hard line on this issue even tho he didn't create the problem.

same old ,same old,i hear you bro

Mont makes some great points. Congrats on looking into the whole issue a bit furthur and not just gobbling up what the media wants to spoon feed us.

The whole issue of having a predominately Muslim country running our ports doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling but I do have to admit that I haven't looked into the whole issue like Mont has. What bothers me most is how Dubya is handling it. Just reinforces my opinions about Bush being a shady character who is only looking to further his own agenda. Then again, doesn't that describe all politicians?

To be fair, it isn't a Bush deal. These foreign business deals are handled by a group of other agencies. They all work together to ensure the deal is fair etc. as well as the security issues. All those things people are asking for a 45 day delay in order to do has already been done....with the exception that more people would be involved in the process that normally have no business being involved in it.

I saw a headline on MSN that said Bush was in the dark on the deal. What does that tell us? Nothing excpet the bias of the author of the article. When looking deeper at the issue it wasn't a Bush issue until it got to the final stages.

I am actually surprised a bit with the left. I am happy to see them showing real concern about security issues but it seems they (along with some righties, too be fair) are trying charge a stricter standard on UAE simply because they are Arab. This is surprising in such a PC world.

I acknowledge that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. Hoever, that doesn't condemn the whole country. Our navy has dealt with this company for many years. The Army sent me to a school on an AF base and there were students there from UAE. They were also serving with us in the Kosovo Campaign and were on the same base camp as I was. I actually got to know some of them fairly well.

Anyways, to condem the whole country on the basis of these 2 men would be like me condeming all of Alabama because of a couple of jackasses buring down churches. I have been stationed in AL and had no issues.

Just throwing stuff out there to think about. I haven't set my opinion in stone yet so these items are as much for me as they are for you.

Hey Bush, why not just throw Duibai our airspace, NASA, and railroads while you're at it.

Aerospace industry is next on list for Dubai's soaring ambitions http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article346674.ece

By Saeed Shah
Published: 21 February 2006

Dubai's phenomenal success story is based on a brilliant branding exercise. That crucial image, which was supposed to be polished still further by Dubai Ports World's £3.9bn takeover of the P&O ports business, has now come under fierce attack in the US because of this very deal.

What American politicians are not able to do is to differentiate between liberal, open, economically dynamic Dubai and its conservative, moribund, oil-rich neighbours.

Dubai has little oil. That is why it had to find another money-spinner. Taking city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong as a model, the emirate has created a business and tourist centre, from a very unpromising creak and strip of desert, over the last two or three decades.

Simon Williams, of the Economist Intelligence Unit, says: "Dubai is a small country with a small labour force, but it has big ideas of where it wants to go."

Dubai's indigenous population is just 150,000, on a land mass about the size of Luxembourg.

The emirate has the world's most luxurious hotel, the biggest artificial island, the largest man-made harbour. The construction of what will be the world's tallest building - Burj Dubai, 800m high, at a cost of $800m (£460m) - and the largest shopping mall has started. The emirate will also boast Dubailand, a $19bn theme park twice the size of Disneyworld in Florida. There will be an underwater hotel and an indoor ski resort, with real snow.

The national airline, Emirates, has seen phenomenal growth, bringing huge traffic to Dubai. It has placed the biggest order for new aircraft in aviation history, including the largest number of the giant A380 planes from Airbus.
The latest megaproject was announced over the weekend: a $15bn scheme to create an aviation services company for the booming economies of Asia and the Middle East. It will develop airports in places such as India and China, lease plans and make aircraft parts.

Analysts say that what may individually look like white elephant projects collectively add up to a clever scheme to create landmarks that put Dubai on the map and in the imagination.

That Dubai brand is so good that one of the first buyers of property on the first artificial island built off the coast was that supreme purveyor of brands, David Beckham. The national image is also why the sporting events that it hosts, such as the Desert Classic golf tournament, are important.

The total population today is about 1.4 million. Around half of those people come from India, Pakistan or other parts of Asia. But astonishingly, there are 110,000 Britons living there. Dubai attracts 7 million visitors a year and that is predicted to grow to 15 million within a decade. This is a country where the hotels enjoy 80 per cent occupancy rates in the sweltering height of summer.

The emirate, one of seven that make up the United Arab Emirates, is run like a private enterprise by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and his father Sheikh Rashid before him. The Maktoums own everything and there is virtually no political or press freedom (the papers are reckoned to be less free than those in Yemen or Sudan). But rather than the traditional autocrat, Sheikh Mohammed sees himself as a CEO.

The development of Dubai started with a realisation by Sheikh Rashid that the key lay with its geographical location - half-way between east and west - and so trade was the basis for growth. That started with the creation of two giant ports. The acquisition of P&O would, then, play to the very foundations of the Dubai economic success story.

Between 1990 and 2004, Dubai's gross domestic product quadrupled to $27bn and it expanded a further 16 per cent last year, according to official statistics. It handles more than $60bn of trade every year.

Dubai allows overseas companies to operate there on a 100 per cent foreign ownership basis. There is no corporation tax.

That the formula works is shown in Dubai's run-away property market and a booming stock market. It has also benefited from the post-9/11 situation, as Arabs throughout the Middle East want to put their money closer to home and the liberalised economy of Dubai is much more attractive than, say, Saudi Arabia.

Dubai has shown that, if you create enough excitement about a place, the money and the crowds will follow.

Dubai's phenomenal success story is based on a brilliant branding exercise. That crucial image, which was supposed to be polished still further by Dubai Ports World's £3.9bn takeover of the P&O ports business, has now come under fierce attack in the US because of this very deal.

What American politicians are not able to do is to differentiate between liberal, open, economically dynamic Dubai and its conservative, moribund, oil-rich neighbours.

Dubai has little oil. That is why it had to find another money-spinner. Taking city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong as a model, the emirate has created a business and tourist centre, from a very unpromising creak and strip of desert, over the last two or three decades.

Simon Williams, of the Economist Intelligence Unit, says: "Dubai is a small country with a small labour force, but it has big ideas of where it wants to go."
Dubai's indigenous population is just 150,000, on a land mass about the size of Luxembourg.
The emirate has the world's most luxurious hotel, the biggest artificial island, the largest man-made harbour. The construction of what will be the world's tallest building - Burj Dubai, 800m high, at a cost of $800m (£460m) - and the largest shopping mall has started. The emirate will also boast Dubailand, a $19bn theme park twice the size of Disneyworld in Florida. There will be an underwater hotel and an indoor ski resort, with real snow.

The national airline, Emirates, has seen phenomenal growth, bringing huge traffic to Dubai. It has placed the biggest order for new aircraft in aviation history, including the largest number of the giant A380 planes from Airbus.
The latest megaproject was announced over the weekend: a $15bn scheme to create an aviation services company for the booming economies of Asia and the Middle East. It will develop airports in places such as India and China, lease plans and make aircraft parts.

Analysts say that what may individually look like white elephant projects collectively add up to a clever scheme to create landmarks that put Dubai on the map and in the imagination.

That Dubai brand is so good that one of the first buyers of property on the first artificial island built off the coast was that supreme purveyor of brands, David Beckham. The national image is also why the sporting events that it hosts, such as the Desert Classic golf tournament, are important.

The total population today is about 1.4 million. Around half of those people come from India, Pakistan or other parts of Asia. But astonishingly, there are 110,000 Britons living there. Dubai attracts 7 million visitors a year and that is predicted to grow to 15 million within a decade. This is a country where the hotels enjoy 80 per cent occupancy rates in the sweltering height of summer.

The emirate, one of seven that make up the United Arab Emirates, is run like a private enterprise by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and his father Sheikh Rashid before him. The Maktoums own everything and there is virtually no political or press freedom (the papers are reckoned to be less free than those in Yemen or Sudan). But rather than the traditional autocrat, Sheikh Mohammed sees himself as a CEO.

The development of Dubai started with a realisation by Sheikh Rashid that the key lay with its geographical location - half-way between east and west - and so trade was the basis for growth. That started with the creation of two giant ports. The acquisition of P&O would, then, play to the very foundations of the Dubai economic success story.

Between 1990 and 2004, Dubai's gross domestic product quadrupled to $27bn and it expanded a further 16 per cent last year, according to official statistics. It handles more than $60bn of trade every year.

Dubai allows overseas companies to operate there on a 100 per cent foreign ownership basis. There is no corporation tax.

That the formula works is shown in Dubai's run-away property market and a booming stock market. It has also benefited from the post-9/11 situation, as Arabs throughout the Middle East want to put their money closer to home and the liberalised economy of Dubai is much more attractive than, say, Saudi Arabia.

Dubai has shown that, if you create enough excitement about a place, the money and the crowds will follow.

Bush knew about the deal, hell the other day he said i will veto any bill that stops this transfer--not a good liar he is..and if you look into this port deal you can find the Bush & his neo-cons all over it..But its only the stuff THEY let you know....

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.
--H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear
--Harry S. Truman

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them. ~Karl Marx

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.George W. Bush



WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

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
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ae.html http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...s/13922695.htm

Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/...investigation/

UPDATE: Bush Nominated UAE Port Executive To Key Post in January! http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/21/17336/2076