|
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00 Reporter: John Shovelan ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab company to run six major US ports. Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably tone deaf". The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational and a financial base. But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE company before approving the deal. From Washington, John Shovelan reports. JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush administration had to examine the implications for national security. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the company had to agree to". But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and operate the important US ports. MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies here. We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment. JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has also begun to campaign for a reversal. Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to intervene. MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake. JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the decision is out of touch. LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel. So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made. Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company from this region now? JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed. BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop. We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a no-brainer. JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went public to oppose the deal. Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the company. At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal. John Shovelan, Washington. ************************************************** ***************** CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! Put a stop to this insanity! Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Yeah, I heard about that when Shirt-off was on Meet the Press. He really
seems to be a weasel. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ups.com... Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00 Reporter: John Shovelan ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab company to run six major US ports. Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably tone deaf". The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational and a financial base. But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE company before approving the deal. From Washington, John Shovelan reports. JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush administration had to examine the implications for national security. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the company had to agree to". But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and operate the important US ports. MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies here. We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment. JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has also begun to campaign for a reversal. Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to intervene. MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake. JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the decision is out of touch. LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel. So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made. Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company from this region now? JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed. BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop. We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a no-brainer. JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went public to oppose the deal. Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the company. At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal. John Shovelan, Washington. ************************************************** ***************** CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! Put a stop to this insanity! Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN OPERATION
OF PORTS LEGAL? NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!! |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Cronyism:
DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member. The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February. Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said: "While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave's selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role." "Joe" wrote in message ups.com... Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00 Reporter: John Shovelan ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab company to run six major US ports. Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably tone deaf". The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational and a financial base. But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE company before approving the deal. From Washington, John Shovelan reports. JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush administration had to examine the implications for national security. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the company had to agree to". But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and operate the important US ports. MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies here. We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment. JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has also begun to campaign for a reversal. Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to intervene. MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake. JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the decision is out of touch. LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel. So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made. Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company from this region now? JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed. BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop. We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a no-brainer. JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went public to oppose the deal. Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the company. At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal. John Shovelan, Washington. ************************************************** ***************** CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! Put a stop to this insanity! Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Too Bad Al Capone could not have been apointed head of FBI .
OK thats my opinion of Arabs running our ports. Richard |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN
OPERATION OF PORTS LEGAL? NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!! Making it "legal" has nothing to do with actually letting it occur. To make it illegal is clearly wrong, but to allow this now with our current problems is bordering on treacherous. Bush has been a traitor since before the 9/11 attacks and lying to America and starting a false war. Bin Laden still free and making home videos after his easy attack on US soil, NO WMDs in a country with no relation to Bin Laden's, many freshly dead Americans for a useless war that will come to nothing. Bush WILL be brought up on criminal charges within 24 months. He will be charged with treason and murder and rightly so. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours?
Amen! "Capt. Rob" wrote in message oups.com... DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN OPERATION OF PORTS LEGAL? NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!! Making it "legal" has nothing to do with actually letting it occur. To make it illegal is clearly wrong, but to allow this now with our current problems is bordering on treacherous. Bush has been a traitor since before the 9/11 attacks and lying to America and starting a false war. Bin Laden still free and making home videos after his easy attack on US soil, NO WMDs in a country with no relation to Bin Laden's, many freshly dead Americans for a useless war that will come to nothing. Bush WILL be brought up on criminal charges within 24 months. He will be charged with treason and murder and rightly so. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours?
Bin Laden's been using a Sony 3 chip camera of one type or another for some time now. The last one I could make out in one of the released stills looked like it was a 150 series camera costing about 4K. That's a better video camera than I currently own. Bin Laden is both wealthy and free. The very idea that anyone is hunting him is plain silly. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Indeed. Bush said yesterday "We should be working to broaden our
partnership in the broader war on terrorism." And I agree, but not putting arabs in any area that has anything risk what so ever to the USA. Let them buy up some more 7-11's or something. I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol) stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal. Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Bin Laden is protected, not hunted. How much do you think the enthusiam for
the war on terror would wane if OBL was killed? "Capt. Rob" wrote in message oups.com... Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours? Bin Laden's been using a Sony 3 chip camera of one type or another for some time now. The last one I could make out in one of the released stills looked like it was a 150 series camera costing about 4K. That's a better video camera than I currently own. Bin Laden is both wealthy and free. The very idea that anyone is hunting him is plain silly. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article et,
Bob Crantz wrote: DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN OPERATION OF PORTS LEGAL? NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!! She was always smarter than Bill. Maybe she always opposed it. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
http://www.videovat.com/videos/926/f...bin-laden.aspx
"Bob Crantz" wrote Bin Laden is protected, not hunted. How much do you think the enthusiam for the war on terror would wane if OBL was killed? "Swabbie Robbie" wrote in message Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours? Bin Laden's been using a Sony 3 chip camera of one type or another for some time now. The last one I could make out in one of the released stills looked like it was a 150 series camera costing about 4K. That's a better video camera than I currently own. Bin Laden is both wealthy and free. The very idea that anyone is hunting him is plain silly. |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Bin Laden is protected, not hunted. How much do you think the enthusiam
for the war on terror would wane if OBL was killed? There is always room for a "new" super villain to scare folks like Scotty and Bart until they wet the bed. Bin Laden's freedom through Bush has never been in doubt, nor has the insult to the American public. Bush is a criminal. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
-- "Swab Rob" wrote There is always room for a "new" super villain like Scotty and Bart , to scare folks like me until I wet the bed. Bob, I told you before I won't hurt you. Honest! I can't talk for Bart, though. better stay in your closet till I find out. Scotty |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Throughout history the US has supported and funded many of its enemies.
FDR turned half of Europe over to Communism and then the US spent trillions fighting it for 60 years. Noriega, Castro, the Saudis, etc, etc. Who do you think profits from all of this? Even defense contractors (such as Loral) turn secrets over to the Chicoms so they become a bigger threat and the defense contractors get more contracts. It's all a racket. They'll all be swimming in the lava lakes. Amen! "Capt. Rob" wrote in message oups.com... Bin Laden is protected, not hunted. How much do you think the enthusiam for the war on terror would wane if OBL was killed? There is always room for a "new" super villain to scare folks like Scotty and Bart until they wet the bed. Bin Laden's freedom through Bush has never been in doubt, nor has the insult to the American public. Bush is a criminal. RB 35s5 NY |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
|
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Have you ever been to a US port? Security? What a joke!
WalMart type rent-a-cops , lazier than the longshoreman who 'work' there. yeah, they stepped up security after 9/11, now you must flash your driver's license as you enter. That's it! And at some ports, once the guards know you, as a regular, you can just wave as you drive in. Scotty "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ... http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=130569 |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Capt. Rob" wrote
Bush WILL be brought up on criminal charges within 24 months. He will be charged with treason and murder and rightly so. Yup - just like LBJ and Nixon were! Bwahahahaha! |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said: I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol) stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal. I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to bite us. What Joe has described clearly is not Xenophobia, but rather a well reasoned, fair and logical response to the situation. Xenophobia denotes a phobic attitude toward strangers or of the unknown and comes from the Greek words ????? (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and ????? (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. Joe has no problem with Middle Easterners running business in the US, he just objects to foriegn interests, namely Middle Eastern, running our ports. Ports are a point of entry into the US. Ports are a bottle neck to US foriegn trade. Just as the US didn't want Communists running our security clearance systems, why would a reasonable person want a Middle Eastern company involved with our ports? It is the stated aim of Muslims to kill infidels (not much different from Communist Doctrine). People from these countries come here and attack the US, killing citizens. Americans are killed in these countries. US ships have been attacked in ports in those countries. Shipping is the easiest method of delivering large weapons to the US. They don't even have to get into port to do significant damage. The Middle Eastern countries lack security measures, technology and US jurisdiction to gaurantee a level of security comfortable to reasonable people. Yes, yes there are many nice and peaceful Muslims but those are not the ones of concern. Why make it any easier for people who want to harm America when there are better alternatives? Why is Bush "cracking down" on American citizens but yet opening the door for foriegners to get into this country so easily? The Southern Border is wide open and now the ports to be run by Middle Easterners? Yet an old lady can't carry a nose hair clipper onto a plane? Something really stinks about this port deal. American citizens are being sold out. One of Lenno's lines last night made me laugh at the foolishness and just plain ignorance of his Hollywood script writers. Something about turning over operation of our ports to a country that's all desert. What planet do these people live on? Do they think oil gets carried from the Mideast to the US via a transatlantic pipeline? Duh... |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Exactly.
No one can tell me an UAE company can run a port facility cheaper, and more efficiently when they have to hire lobbiest like Bob Dole, and pay the cost of getting into the bigboys clubs better or cheaper than 100's of US companies. Screw Bush on this one. I think he has underestimated the backlash on this shady deal. I hope the Governers cancel the leases, and the longshoremen start acting like longshoremen :0) Tugboat Captains, and port pilots should refuse to board any ship bound to any terminal that is UAE controlled. Sheeeze.... next thing you know we will be staffing the border patrol with the French foreign legion. Someone is walking around with some fat pockets on this deal. And when someone has to buy and lobby into our ports...... I smell something very fishey, and it ain't a pogy boat. Joe Don't mess with our ports |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts?
Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:56:58 GMT, "Bob Crantz" said: Just as the US didn't want Communists running our security clearance systems, why would a reasonable person want a Middle Eastern company involved with our ports? Since you are unable to distinguish between an individual's professed ideology and his country of origin, as you obviously are not, there's little point in continuing the discussion. I'm talking US security measures. Did you know Americans holding US security clearances can't even travel to certain countries? Ideology does really have very little to do with it, it's a question of risk to vital American interests. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theor.../blsecmenu.htm BTW, the arguments you set forth strongly suggest than all Arabs, Pakistanis and Iranians should be prohibited from holding NYC taxi drivers' licenses. In your mind it may. Then, by your arguments it is perfectly ok for any foriegner to carry Bush's nuclear football and the codes! |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said: I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol) stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal. I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to bite us. I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or is this just the one that made the news? -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 23 Feb 2006 10:23:15 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said: as Frist said, tone deaf If Frist did indeed say that (and I didn't hear him say it) he was echoing the words of Lindsay Graham on one of the Sunday morning talk shows (which I did see). I'm pretty certain it was Frist, but he may be on the same page as Graham also. Certainly, at least being tone deaf is true. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On 23 Feb 2006 09:24:24 -0800, "Joe" said: When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts? If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of NYC's infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing suspicion than by using a cab. I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you? |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote: In article , Dave wrote: On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said: I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol) stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal. I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to bite us. I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or is this just the one that made the news? I really can't see why you guys are getting upset. 1. WRT security, my experience coincides with Scotty's. I had to get a gee-whiz new security pass to work on the docks here. BFD, I wave it at the magic reader and go inside. Mine is issued by the local Ports Authority which is a State Govt body. In another year apparently they'll be issued by the Feds. BFD again. It'll make no difference. 2. Security on cargo is, was and probably always will be a joke. Scanning of cargo ditto. It's got little or nothing to do with the ports operators, never has and never will. The CUSTOMS people are responsible. IMHO the only way to ensure security is to check all cargo on ships prior to berthing. This is obviously impractical so get over it. 3. Port operators assign berths, cranes to ships, run stores and container yards, provide other services to ships. Freight forwarders and Customs deal with moving cargo and tracking cargo. It's obvious you guys don't understand the differences. Maybe your ports guys do it all, I dunno, but I doubt it. 4. Ship crew can & do smuggle anything they like, anywhere they like, any time they like regardless of who's running a port. I could give you pages of examples but I can't be bothered and it might give away something my friends wouldn't like known. 5. Longshoremen ditto. 6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other places on the planet. Clue time. Maybe their business is running ports, and they actually know how to do it? Second clue time. It's real estate. At least here in Oz, these guys run the port facilities under the overarching control of a Govt body. They can always lose it. It's not like they can take the port o/s with them if they have a hissy fit. This plays like a re-run of the 80's Japanese buying America. WGAF? PDW |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:31:58 GMT, "Bob Crantz" said: If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of NYC's infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing suspicion than by using a cab. I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you? Come back when you're thinking more clearly, Bob. That might be a long time. |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article , Dave wrote: On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said: I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol) stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal. I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to bite us. I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or is this just the one that made the news? I really can't see why you guys are getting upset. 1. WRT security, my experience coincides with Scotty's. I had to get a gee-whiz new security pass to work on the docks here. BFD, I wave it at the magic reader and go inside. Mine is issued by the local Ports Authority which is a State Govt body. In another year apparently they'll be issued by the Feds. BFD again. It'll make no difference. 2. Security on cargo is, was and probably always will be a joke. Scanning of cargo ditto. It's got little or nothing to do with the ports operators, never has and never will. The CUSTOMS people are responsible. IMHO the only way to ensure security is to check all cargo on ships prior to berthing. This is obviously impractical so get over it. 3. Port operators assign berths, cranes to ships, run stores and container yards, provide other services to ships. Freight forwarders and Customs deal with moving cargo and tracking cargo. It's obvious you guys don't understand the differences. Maybe your ports guys do it all, I dunno, but I doubt it. 4. Ship crew can & do smuggle anything they like, anywhere they like, any time they like regardless of who's running a port. I could give you pages of examples but I can't be bothered and it might give away something my friends wouldn't like known. 5. Longshoremen ditto. 6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other places on the planet. Clue time. Maybe their business is running ports, and they actually know how to do it? Second clue time. It's real estate. At least here in Oz, these guys run the port facilities under the overarching control of a Govt body. They can always lose it. It's not like they can take the port o/s with them if they have a hissy fit. This plays like a re-run of the 80's Japanese buying America. WGAF? PDW Thanks for giving facts so one can consider otherwise. Amen! |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. 6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other places on the planet. Never heard of Dubai. I go to a P&O port about 4 times a month. Icould tell you some stories about what goes on at the piers, but it sounds like you've seen / heard it all before. Scotty |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... "Dave" wrote in message ... On 23 Feb 2006 09:24:24 -0800, "Joe" said: When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts? If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of NYC's infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing suspicion than by using a cab. I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you? You would need a Mini Cooper for that. SV |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:00:10 +0000, Peter Wiley said: I really can't see why you guys are getting upset. I think most of the hysteria is fed by an underlying assumption by many Americans that all Arabs are terrorists. They are unable or unwilling to articulate that premise because it's un-PC to do so. That said, the two elements that in combination give me pause are uncertainty about how much information a port operator would have about the operative details of whatever security measures are adopted to safeguard cargo, and the fact that a Dubai-based enterprise may be more vulnerable than other enterprises might be to infiltration by people out to do us in. The two questions are obviously inter-related. A third question, which has not been addressed to my knowledge, is: are there no American or non-Middle East firms that can accomplish the same job, and if so why was the British, now UAE, firm chosen over the others? This is a business question, not related to the two questions you posed above. Max |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article . net,
Bob Crantz wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On 23 Feb 2006 09:24:24 -0800, "Joe" said: When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts? If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of NYC's infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing suspicion than by using a cab. I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you? Perhaps, but given the way some of them drive, it wouldn't be that unusual. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... A third question, which has not been addressed to my knowledge, is: are there no American or non-Middle East firms that can accomplish the same job, and if so why was the British, now UAE, firm chosen over the others? This is a business question, not related to the two questions you posed above. Payoffs, shhhhhh.... |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article , Scotty
wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. 6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other places on the planet. Never heard of Dubai. I go to a P&O port about 4 times a month. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/21/port.europe/ Icould tell you some stories about what goes on at the piers, but it sounds like you've seen / heard it all before. Oh yeah. Been involved with shipping for 30 odd years. Some of them very odd. Actually wrote a port management software package back in the early 90's, was used in BVI for a while, dunno if it still is. Good friend of mine's brother is a wharfie (longshoreman to you), father was one, cousins ditto, one a maritime union representative. I like ports, ships, general maritime stuff. PDW |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
In article , Dave
wrote: On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:00:10 +0000, Peter Wiley said: I really can't see why you guys are getting upset. I think most of the hysteria is fed by an underlying assumption by many Americans that all Arabs are terrorists. They are unable or unwilling to articulate that premise because it's un-PC to do so. That said, the two elements that in combination give me pause are uncertainty about how much information a port operator would have about the operative details of whatever security measures are adopted to safeguard cargo, That is a valid concern, because the ports people have to know. and the fact that a Dubai-based enterprise may be more vulnerable than other enterprises might be to infiltration by people out to do us in. Yeah, might be, but you could probably find out all you needed to know by hanging out in the local bars. Assuming you could blend in of course. Subcontract to Scotty...... A well run & busy port is a cash cow. You get to charge everyone for everything and they have limited choices of what to do about it, since the cost of building a new port is somewhere between prohibitive & impossible. Since all costs get loaded onto the next in the food chain, the shippers & freight forwarders don't care. They care about getting ships/cargo turned around fast, so inefficiency is an issue, but they'll pay what it costs. PDW |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Peter Wiley" wrote Never heard of Dubai. I go to a P&O port about 4 times a month. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/21/port.europe/ When they say the port of Balt, or NJ, I wonder if it means all of them, as there are several different ports within each city. P&O is one of 5 'lines' inside Dundalk Marine Terminal, which is one of 5 different ports in Balt. Icould tell you some stories about what goes on at the piers, but it sounds like you've seen / heard it all before. Oh yeah. Been involved with shipping for 30 odd years. Some of them very odd. Actually wrote a port management software package back in the early 90's, was used in BVI for a while, dunno if it still is. Good friend of mine's brother is a wharfie (longshoreman to you), father was one, cousins ditto, one a maritime union representative. I like ports, ships, general maritime stuff. Yeah, some interesting stuff to fondle while walking around, including sailboats. I've gone on a few ships while docked. Just walked up the gang plank as if I belonged there. Gotten a LOT of ''free'' stuff off the wharfies over the years. My buddy and I picked up a pair of big punch presses a few years ago. Long story short, his had $3M worth of coke stashed inside. Customs knew about it from the origin. He had to testify in court. Scotty |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
And do you find it strange that UAE can afford Bob Doyle to lobby for
them, can get a former board member in the presidents cabinet.... and still afford to do the job cheaper and pay more to run the port? Just maybe they have other reasons. I'm not willing to risk it myself. So I called Poe, and Delaney and asked them to Nix the deal. I hear the longshoremen are all going to draw cartoons of Mohommed on the shipping containers. 100's could die! Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Well when it comes to our security some things are not for sale. Even
to the highest bidder. The deal will be crushed. Mark my words Dave.....CRUSHED! The cats outta the bag. Joe |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
"Joe" wrote in message ups.com... Well when it comes to our security some things are not for sale. Even to the highest bidder. The deal will be crushed. Mark my words Dave.....CRUSHED! The cats outta the bag. Joe The UAE ports are the most used foriegn ports by the US Navy. The country has been a strong US ally. Even General Tommy Franks says it's ok for the UAE to operate ports in the US. I'm having second thoughts on this. Loyalty should be rewarded. Hell, Harriet Meyers almost became a SC Justice! America - the land of opportunity! "America is the land where anyone can become President - except me!" Barry Goldwater Amen! |
US ports turned over to Arabs?
Again I think loyality should be rewarded.
I think the UAE has enough going on here to not be ****ed they can not run our ports too. Let's say and American wan'ts to start-up a company or branch in the UAE what is required. I'll tell you what is required, you have to have a local own 51% of the company thats what. Ownership Requirements Fifty-one per cent participation by UAE nationals is the general requirement for all UAE established companies except: Where the law requires 100% local ownership; In the Jebel Ali Free Zone; In activities open to 100% AGCC ownership; Where wholly owned AGCC companies enter into partnership with UAE nationals; In respect of foreign companies registering branches or a representative office in Dubai; In professional or artisan companies where 100% foreign ownership is permitted. Legal Structures for Business In the past, each emirate followed its own procedures governing the operations of foreign business interests. In practice, however, Dubai and the other emirates followed the same general system, whereby foreign companies operated in one of three ways: with a local sponsor, through a partnership with a UAE national or company, or through a private limited company or public shareholding company incorporated by Ruler's decree. Since 1984, steps have been taken to introduce a codified companies law applicable throughout the UAE. Federal Law No. 8 of 1984, as amended by Federal Law No. 13 of 1988 - the "Commercial Companies Law" - and its by-laws have been issued. In broad terms the provisions of the Law are as follows: The Federal Law stipulates a total local equity of not less than 51% in any commercial company and defines seven categories of business organization which can be established in the UAE. It sets out the requirements in terms of shareholders, directors, minimum capital levels and incorporation procedures. It further lays down provisions governing conversion, merger and dissolution of companies. The seven categories of business organisation defined by the law a General partnership company Partnership-en-commendam Joint venture company Public shareholding company Private shareholding company Limited liability company Share partnership company Partnerships Partnership companies are limited to UAE nationals only. The Dubai government does not presently encourage the establishment of partnership-en-commendam and share partnership companies. Joint Venture Companies A joint venture is a contractual agreement between a foreign party and a local party licensed to engage in the desired activity. The local equity participation in the joint venture must be at least 51%, but the profit and loss distribution can be prescribed. There is no need to license the joint venture or publish the agreement. The foreign partner deals with third parties under the name of the local partner who - unless the agreement is publicized - bears all liability. In practice, joint ventures are seen as offering a suitable structure for companies working together on specific projects. Public and Private Shareholding Companies The Law stipulates that companies engaging in banking, insurance, or financial activities should be run as public shareholding companies. Foreign banks, insurance and financial companies, however, can establish a presence in Dubai by opening a branch or representative office. Shareholding companies are suitable primarily for large projects or operations, since the minimum capital required is Dh. 10 million (US$ 2.725 million) for a public company, and Dh. 2 million (US$ 0.545 million) for a private shareholding company. The chairman and a majority of directors must be UAE nationals and there is less flexibility of profit distribution than is permissible in the case of limited liability companies. Limited Liability Companies A limited liability company can be formed by a minimum of two and a maximum of 50 persons whose liability is limited to their shares in the company's capital. Such companies are recognized as offering a suitable structure for organizations interested in developing a long term relationship in the local market. In Dubai, the minimum capital is currently Dh. 300,000 (US$ 82,000), contributed in cash or in kind. While foreign equity in the company may not exceed 49%, profit and loss distribution can be prescribed. Responsibility for the management of a limited liability company can be vested in the foreign or national partners or a third party. The following steps are required in establishing a limited liability company in Dubai. Select a commercial name for the company and have it approved by the Licensing Department of the Economic Department; Draw up the company's Memorandum of Association and have it notarized by a Notary Public in the Dubai Courts; Seek approval from the Economic Department and apply for entry in the Commercial Register; Once approval is granted, the company will be entered in the Commercial Register and have its Memorandum of Association published in the Ministry of Economy and Commerce's Bulletin. The license will then be issued by the Economic Department; The company should then be registered with the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Branches and Representative Offices of Foreign Commercial Companies The Commercial Companies Law also covers the formation and regulation of branches and representative offices of foreign companies in the UAE and stipulates that they may be 100% foreign owned, provided a local agent is appointed. Only UAE nationals or companies 100% owned by UAE nationals may be appointed as local agents (which should not be confused with the term "commercial agent"). Local agents -- also sometimes referred to as sponsors -- are not involved in the operations of the company but assist in obtaining visas, labour cards, etc and are paid a lump sum and/or a percentage of profits or turnover. In general, branches and offices of foreign commercial companies are not licensed to engage in importing activity except for re-export or in the case of products of a highly technical nature. To establish a branch or representative office in Dubai, a foreign commercial company should proceed as follows: Apply for a license from the Ministry of Economy and Commerce, submitting an agency agreement with a UAE national or 100% UAE owned company. Before issuing the license, the Ministry will: forward the application to the Economic Department to obtain the approval of the Dubai government; forward the application specifying the activity that the office or branch will be authorized to undertake in the UAE, to the Federal Foreign Companies Committee for approval; Once this has been done, the Ministry of Economy and Commerce will issue the required Ministerial license specifying the activity to be practiced by the foreign company; The branch or office should be entered in the Economic Department's Commercial Register, and the required license will be issued; The branch or office should also be entered in the Foreign Companies Register of the Ministry of Economy and Commerce; Finally the branch or office should be registered with the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Branches and Representative Offices of Foreign Professional Companies Branches and representative offices of foreign professional firms may be 100% foreign owned provided UAE nationals or 100% UAE owned companies are appointed as local agents. Such agents are not involved in the operations of the firm but assist in obtaining visas, labour cards etc and are paid a lump sum as remuneration. The Economic Department is the authority in charge of licensing such branches or representational offices. Professional Firms In setting up a professional firm, 100% foreign ownership, sole proprietorships or civil companies are permitted. Such firms may engage in professional or artisan activities but the number of staff members that may be employed is limited. A UAE national must be appointed as local service agent, but he has no direct involvement in the business and is paid a lump sum and/or percentage of profits or turnover. The role of the local service agent is to assist in obtaining licenses, visas, labour cards, etc. Joe |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com