JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You can't completely separate the two.

The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the
very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely
devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so.

We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims.

However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US
ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people
into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two
are extremist, religious, fanatics.

Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port
operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does
it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate
into a single, security sensitive industry.

During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against
dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment
camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese
Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly,
I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab
ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the
Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged
P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port
facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially
one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards.
Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And
the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million
over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would
put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You can't completely separate the two.

The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the
very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely
devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so.

We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims.

However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US
ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people
into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two
are extremist, religious, fanatics.

Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port
operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does
it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate
into a single, security sensitive industry.

During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against
dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment
camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese
Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either.


The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be
Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port
operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not
understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of
work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland.
A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not
NYC run there own port?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be
Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port
operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not
understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of
work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of
Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco.
Why can not NYC run there own port?


All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The
Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican
supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a
closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles
with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit
strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the
purchase.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:55:53 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will
be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of
port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies.
Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did
a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port
of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San
Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port?


Actually, I thought they did. The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey runs the three major airports, all of the cross Hudson bridges and
tunnels, including the PATH trains, has it's own police force, and, I
believe, owns the ports this UAE company is to run.

http://www.panynj.gov/


All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The
Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican
supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a
closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles
with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit
strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the
purchase.

He does seem a little out of step on his threaten vetoes. Remember when
he threatened to veto the torture bill?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:55:53 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will
be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of
port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies.
Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did
a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port
of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San
Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port?


Actually, I thought they did. The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey runs the three major airports, all of the cross Hudson bridges and
tunnels, including the PATH trains, has it's own police force, and, I
believe, owns the ports this UAE company is to run.

http://www.panynj.gov/


All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation.
The
Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican
supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a
closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles
with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit
strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the
purchase.

He does seem a little out of step on his threaten vetoes. Remember when
he threatened to veto the torture bill?

There are so few viable reasons for this. Dare I venture (again) into the
theory about his intellect? Or....wait...here's a good one: His advisors are
"plants" from the other side of the aisle! They're being paid (by dark
forces) to feed him lame ideas.

On 21 Feb 2006 18:20:58 -0800, wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You can't completely separate the two.

The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the
very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely
devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so.

We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims.

However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US
ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people
into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two
are extremist, religious, fanatics.


The longshoremen's union is going to become all Muslims? I don't think so.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************