NationStates Jolt Archive

Dubai to give up control of U.S. ports (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11741617/)

Wow. And they even had the shrub threatening his first veto in order to give it to them. I have to say I'm happy over this development.

Racism and xenophobia win.

So much for a free market.

Though according to what I've received, they're giving it up to an American entity. Alwell.

I was hoping this controversy continued into the election. Now I guess all I have is the Abramoff, Delay and Liby scandals to hopefully cost the Republicans at the voting booth come June.

I was hoping this controversy continued into the election. Now I guess all I have is the Abramoff, Delay and Liby scandals to hopefully cost the Republicans at the voting booth come June.

Don't be so sure. This is one of those blunders that can be brought up against those who supported it long after the dust settles.

I hope the WTO has a real go at the US because of this.

I hope the WTO has a real go at the US because of this.

Actually, the WTO doesn't factor into this.

Racism 4tw. :rolleyes:

Actually, the WTO doesn't factor into this.Does it not? Meh, I hope the US keeps on spending and is forced to take loan from the IMF with conditions on opening up their markets then.

wow scary part is I'm not sure if its good or bad...

Racism and xenophobia win again, and the free market is crushed under the weight of politicians appealing to fear...another glorious day for our government. Oh, and I guess these idiots in Congress don't realize that the UAE is one of the only Middle Eastern countries we run a trade surplus with...I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to stop buying some of our durable goods in retaliation. Oops, there go a few thousand more manufacturing jobs but thank God those evil Arabs aren't buying our ports.

I hope they kick around the US dollar around a little through divestitures just to teach the sanctimonious piece-of-shit xenophobes in Congress a lesson. They did this once before against the Chinese and they move again against the Arabs...the level of ignorance and intolerance along with hypocrisy is staggering at times.

Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, please do us a favor and block a few US companies from buying assets in your countries just to put the shoe on the other foot for a while.

Great, the US is safe now! :rolleyes:

oh wait, there is still the the suicide bombers, Iran, and North Korea. Oh well, I guess Bush will just have to attack all of them.

And the evil Arab savages are kept at bay again. :rolleyes:

Maybe the UAE will liquidate their US dollar holdings and transfer to the Euro.

Not that I was against this deal, but you guys do know that Dubai allows no foriegn controll of their ports, right? Not just American, but any foriegn country at all. Also, you realize that this was not a private company, but a company owned by the government of Dubai. Again, I'm not sure what my stance on this was because the Administration did it in secret like they do everything else. I think if they had been open about it from the door it may have actually gone through.

Maybe the UAE will liquidate their US dollar holdings and transfer to the Euro.

I doubt the UAE is that jingoist.

Giving control to US ports to the UAE was a bad move politically on the part of Bush. With all of his gabbering about the "evils" of Middle-Eastern nations, and then to turn around and give some of our ports to them...I think that's called "flip-flopping".

In any case in the long run this in means little to me. I'm sure we would have been fine with the UAE company. I could really care less who had control of our ports, so long as they have proven themselves reliable, safe and efficient.

I doubt the UAE is that jingoist.

Well I don't see why not. There's plenty of other reasons to peg their oil on the Euro in addition to the USD. They were continuing to use only the USD to engender better trade relations with the USA. I doubt that this makes the UAE happy about that decision.

Not that I was against this deal, but you guys do know that Dubai allows no foriegn controll of their ports, right? Not just American, but any foriegn country at all. Also, you realize that this was not a private company, but a company owned by the government of Dubai. Again, I'm not sure what my stance on this was because the Administration did it in secret like they do everything else. I think if they had been open about it from the door it may have actually gone through.

Yes, we were all beaten down with every single detail of this entire deal for weeks. We all still believe what we believe.

Not that I was against this deal, but you guys do know that Dubai allows no foriegn controll of their ports, right? Not just American, but any foriegn country at all. Also, you realize that this was not a private company, but a company owned by the government of Dubai. Again, I'm not sure what my stance on this was because the Administration did it in secret like they do everything else. I think if they had been open about it from the door it may have actually gone through.

I agree that transparency was an issue here, but the innate nature of the deal and the various stipulations and agreements required for its approval (not to mention DP World's impeccable record in the industry and its role as a major leader in the field) make it hard to argue that a state-owned company would pose any threat to security.

“DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity,” the firm’s top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Sounds like an evil jihadist to me.

I agree that transparency was an issue here, but the innate nature of the deal and the various stipulations and agreements required for its approval (not to mention DP World's impeccable record in the industry and its role as a major leader in the field) make it hard to argue that a state-owned company would pose any threat to security.
Itend to agree, but the secrecy thing I think did two things. It turned off congress because they felt bypassed as they often are and it left many of the American people with the feeling that something was wrong or they would have been upfront.

Yes, we were all beaten down with every single detail of this entire deal for weeks. We all still believe what we believe.
My point is that they were asking for something from the US, control over ports, that they are unwilling to give to anyone else. My own feelings are that I really don't like the way the adminitsration handles things so I like the fact that it git a black eye, but I also agree that we need to encourage moderation in the Muslim world and to reward nations that have been our alies. I'm torn, but I guess it doesn't matter now.

Well I don't see why not. There's plenty of other reasons to peg their oil on the Euro in addition to the USD. They were continuing to use only the USD to engender better trade relations with the USA. I doubt that this makes the UAE happy about that decision.

Not to mention the US runs a trade surplus of $7 billion/year with the UAE, making them our second largest target for exports...if they weaken the dollar, they can suddenly buy more of our products for cheaper than they currently do. It's economically common sense for them, and a slap in the face like this only motivates them further.

I reacted negatively when I first heard of this. I have no idea really whether our ports would be safe or not under UAE. But the fact is, our ports are not safe at all right now. 95% of what comes in through our ports go uninspected, as mentioned by Kerry during the debates. This simply wasn't the news I expected to hear in relation to our ports. I'm glad that Bush took such a strong stand for the Free Market but what happened to all that bullshit he was pushing about taking a strong stand for Homeland Security?

Maybe things would be just as they always have been under the UAE but as far as news goes, this wasn't the good news I wanted to hear.

Itend to agree, but the secrecy thing I think did two things. It turned off congress because they felt bypassed as they often are and it left many of the American people with the feeling that something was wrong or they would have been upfront.

Well, I think it was both. The Administration was afraid of a public backlash, so they didn't make the deal transparent, which in turn angered Congress who took advantage of the public outcry and ran with it, making it far more than it really was. Unfortunately, the Congress caved in to the racist elements in their respective parties (including the unions for the Democrats, which was particularly disturbing).

Dubai to give up control of U.S. ports (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11741617/)

Wow. And they even had the shrub threatening his first veto in order to give it to them. I have to say I'm happy over this development.

Im wondering, will you now support an effort to remove forgein companies control over airline operations in US territories.. it really amounts to the same thing. This event goes against the entire idea of free market and globalization which the US is suppose to champion around the world. While I expected this from republicans as their usual stance on security. I must say I was rather shocked by the Democrats taking the lead as they go against their usual stance against racial profling.

The idea that this deal had anything to do with security is a farse at best. Since when do terrorists need access to foregin companies to infultrate our boarders and plan attacks. Because they couldn't just walk over the mexican boarder like the 1 million + illegal mexicans do every year.

Well, I think it was both. The Administration was afraid of a public backlash, so they didn't make the deal transparent, which in turn angered Congress who took advantage of the public outcry and ran with it, making it far more than it really was. Unfortunately, the Congress caved in to the racist elements in their respective parties (including the unions for the Democrats, which was particularly disturbing).
That's unfortunately the tactic this admin always pulls. "Don't worry everyone, everythings fine. :p Hey, look over there! :p It's a puppy dog! :p Don't worry, we'll protect you from the terrorists, look here! This is Chewbacca! If ewoks are from Endore, how can Chewbacca be a wookie? Look over there! :p "

I reacted negatively when I first heard of this. I have no idea really whether our ports would be safe or not under UAE. But the fact is, our ports are not safe at all right now. 95% of what comes in through our ports go uninspected, as mentioned by Kerry during the debates. This simply wasn't the news I expected to hear in relation to our ports. I'm glad that Bush took such a strong stand for the Free Market but what happened to all that bullshit he was pushing about taking a strong stand for Homeland Security?.

The nature of the deal might have given the government the muscle necessary to force through real security improvements in to the system (and the deal did require major security upgrades as well as multiple disclosure agreements and security programs) but the Congress sacrificed it (and the free market) to appeal to what really was a racially and religiously motivated backlash in their respective constituencies.

American companies have run our ports for five years since 9/11, and they are little or no more secure than they were then. Clearly, keeping it in house is not a guarantee of security or improvements in security.

That's unfortunately the tactic this admin always pulls. "Don't worry everyone, everythings fine. :p Hey, look over there! :p It's a puppy dog! :p Don't worry, we'll protect you from the terrorists, look here! This is Chewbacca! If ewoks are from Endore, how can Chewbacca be a wookie? Look over there! :p "

Smoke, mirrors, and the Chewbacca defense...this Admin in a sentence. :p

The nature of the deal might have given the government the muscle necessary to force through real security improvements in to the system (and the deal did require major security upgrades as well as multiple disclosure agreements and security programs) but the Congress sacrificed it (and the free market) to appeal to what really was a racially and religiously motivated backlash in their respective constituencies.

American companies have run our ports for five years since 9/11, and they are little or no more secure than they were then. Clearly, keeping it in house is not a guarantee of security or improvements in security.
That might well be true. I am (subtly, I guess) trying to admit that I over-reacted.

I just wish I was hearing more about security measures. I especially wish I had heard more about the major security upgrades you mentioned. Any links, off hand?

Because they couldn't just walk over the mexican boarder like the 1 million + illegal mexicans do every year.
Oh my GOd! Don't let Jacoiba see you post that! She'll call you a racist! :mad:

Frankly, I don't think a privately owned company should be guarding our ports. I think if we're really fighting a war on terror, we should make a state company or army division to defend all our ports completely.

Oh my GOd! Don't let Jacoiba see you post that! She'll call you a racist! :mad:

reguardless of such rhetorical jargin.. facts are facts, and laws are laws.

My point is that they were asking for something from the US, control over ports, that they are unwilling to give to anyone else. My own feelings are that I really don't like the way the adminitsration handles things so I like the fact that it git a black eye, but I also agree that we need to encourage moderation in the Muslim world and to reward nations that have been our alies. I'm torn, but I guess it doesn't matter now.

So you believe that in order for them to be allowed to own US ports they should not own UAE ports? I do not see what one has to do with the other.

Frankly, I don't think a privately owned company should be guarding our ports. I think if we're really fighting a war on terror, we should make a state company or army division to defend all our ports completely.
They weren't going to be securing our ports, they were going to administer them. Security would still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and Customs.

.
I just wish I was hearing more about security measures. I especially wish I had heard more about the major security upgrades you mentioned. Any links, off hand?

Here's the main one from the DHS website:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5437

The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction.

This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.
DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.


P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including:
o The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
o The Container Security Initiative (CSI);
o The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and,
o The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy.

All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.

Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.

There are others, but this is really the most specific. Other news articles tend to make more vague statements but this spells it out clearly.

Frankly, I don't think a privately owned company should be guarding our ports. I think if we're really fighting a war on terror, we should make a state company or army division to defend all our ports completely.

They were to be in charge of port OPERATIONS... operations which would largely be conducted by American union members anyway. Security of the ports would and still are conducted by Homeland security and the coastguard. This deal had nothing to do with guarding our ports, though politicans like to give that impression by keeping the people ignorant.

Here's the main one from the DHS website:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5437



There are others, but this is really the most specific. Other news articles tend to make more vague statements but this spells it out clearly.
Yeah... the articles I was reading seemed to be all headline followed by filler. Thanks. I was wrong about this.

So you believe that in order for them to be allowed to own US ports they should not own UAE ports? I do not see what one has to do with the other.
No, as I said even in the post you quoted I wasn't against, I was torn. My point was that the UAE wanted to have administrative control of some of our ports, but they do not allow, as a matter of practice, foreign control of their own. I'm saying that a US company, or any company from any other country, could not have the same investment opportunities in Dubai as they wanted here.

Well, I think it was both. The Administration was afraid of a public backlash, so they didn't make the deal transparent, which in turn angered Congress who took advantage of the public outcry and ran with it, making it far more than it really was. Unfortunately, the Congress caved in to the racist elements in their respective parties (including the unions for the Democrats, which was particularly disturbing).

The Democrats have been trying to challenge the national security credentials of the Republicans for a long time, I don't think the stances of the relevant unions made much of a difference. In fact those unions have been speaking out about the lax security at US ports regularly since 9/11/01, regardless of what country the company owning them came from, and that remained their focus.

They were to be in charge of port OPERATIONS... operations which would largely be conducted by American union members anyway. Security of the ports would and still are conducted by Homeland security and the coastguard. This deal had nothing to do with guarding our ports, though politicans like to give that impression by keeping the people ignorant.

Precisely. The only thing that would have changed with this deal is who was making money off our ports. And it's not even as if a US company would be being replaced. They were British owned before.

No, as I said even in the post you quoted I wasn't against, I was torn. My point was that the UAE wanted to have administrative control of some of our ports, but they do not allow, as a matter of practice, foreign control of their own. I'm saying that a US company, or any company from any other company, could not have the same investment opportunities in Dubai as they wanted here.

I think that is why this decision is even worse...we run a trade surplus with the UAE, but now that we're effectively extorting rightfully accquired assets from them what incentive do they have to open up their markets more? I mean, if we want to have equal opportunity, we negotiate a level playing field and don't make protectionist moves like this...this is an economic blunder and a diplomatic disaster.

It would be like slapping a tariff on Chinese goods to get them to lower tariffs...it just doesn't work.

It's still weird though, that Bush has never vetoed (sp?) anything but was considering vetoing this. I mean... that's a little weird, right?

The Democrats have been trying to challenge the national security credentials of the Republicans for a long time, I don't think the stances of the relevant unions made much of a difference. In fact those unions have been speaking out about the lax security at US ports regularly since 9/11/01, regardless of what country the company owning them came from, and that remained their focus.

That's what bothers me; these groups previously fought for national security regardless of who or where it came from, but they were obsessed more this time with the racial and religious nature of the purchaser far more than they were the actual security involved.

As much as I credit the Democrats for making efforts to tone down the borderline racist rhetoric that emergred following 9/11 and their ongoing fight to eliminate racial profiling and other discriminatory measures, this response is disturbing. They seem to be selling out their established values in order to look tough on national security, and that is a terrible move in the wrong direction when the entire debate is laced with xenophobia and anti-Islamic anger.

That's what bothers me; these groups previously fought for national security regardless of who or where it came from, but they were obsessed more this time with the racial and religious nature of the purchaser far more than they were the actual security involved.

Here's the International Longshore and Warehouse Union's statement on the subject: http://www.ilwu.org/press/2006/upload/ILWU_portsecurity_rls%2002-23-06%20FINAL.pdf

As much as I credit the Democrats for making efforts to tone down the borderline racist rhetoric that emergred following 9/11 and their ongoing fight to eliminate racial profiling and other discriminatory measures, this response is disturbing. They seem to be selling out their established values in order to look tough on national security, and that is a terrible move in the wrong direction when the entire debate is laced with xenophobia and anti-Islamic anger.

The Democratic leadership does not care about its "established values." For once, they saw an opportunity and actually seized it, probably because it contradicted their "established values"; it makes them look moderate while still attacking the people in power. It's too bad they had to choose this one and not the countless other opportunities they have had in the past year, opportunities that did not involve appealing to bigotry.

Frankly, I don't think a privately owned company should be guarding our ports. I think if we're really fighting a war on terror, we should make a state company or army division to defend all our ports completely.

When the DHSC relies on rent a cops for it's security, giving ports army divisions to protect it makes little sense. Besides, security on ports for inbound traffic is dealt with by customs officials and the coast guard, both of them federal entities. If you want to talk about improving security on the ports, take a look at those two and make them better. Creating additional divisions is like putting a bandaid on the face when the torniquet on the leg needs changing.

Funny isn't it? The champion of free trade and globalization acting like a pinko commie (one of they're favorite terms for enemies), in the name of the great god xenophobia.

Well you guys got me, I wasn't very informed, I'll stay out of this topic.

They'll just try again later when no ones noticing, they'll secretly buy out the American Company when it all settles down. No real change. Of course if you forget that the UAE homeland workforce are people who are basicly stuck in the country as slave Labor. (They take their vistas when they enter) I didn't like it not because of where the country is located of their appearence and Religion.

And call me whatever the hell you want but I think globalization is bad. It means that eventually they'll just be one worldwide super Corporation that we'll all have to work for. I'm guessing we'll all work for Walmart one day.

All right, yes, there are lots of racists and xenophobes in the US. Why should we be different from anywhere else? And yes, Americans got all het up about this because it was them A-rabs. Shame on my fellow Americans, but not for blocking the DPW deal. Shame of them for not blocking all the other deals with other countries before this.

Consider this: What kind of a country full of ass-backwards morons puts their own strategic infrastructure under the control of foreign entities who are not -- repeat, not -- 100% bound by their laws. I was horrified even to learn that P&O was a totally foreign company (private, UK). Don't get me started on the Chinese operating ports out of Long Beach, CA. These foreign entities are not available to be regulated to US standards by US agencies. We have no control over who runs these companies or who runs their home countries. This is especially vital when the company is actually a government-owned entity, like Dubai Ports World (admittedly an excellent company, but that's not the point). The UAE may be our ally now, but what if their government changes? Iran was our ally once, too, you know. So was Iraq. Germany has alternated between ally and enemy several times. Hell, go back far enough, you can say the same about England.

It disgusts me to see the degree to which Americans have made themselves dependent on foreign goodwill for transportation, shipping, food, water, energy, etc., etc., etc. We are fools to live this way.

Im wondering, will you now support an effort to remove forgein companies control over airline operations in US territories.. it really amounts to the same thing. This event goes against the entire idea of free market and globalization which the US is suppose to champion around the world. While I expected this from republicans as their usual stance on security. I must say I was rather shocked by the Democrats taking the lead as they go against their usual stance against racial profling.

The idea that this deal had anything to do with security is a farse at best. Since when do terrorists need access to foregin companies to infultrate our boarders and plan attacks. Because they couldn't just walk over the mexican boarder like the 1 million + illegal mexicans do every year.
I will and do call for that. Strategic infrastructure is strategic infrastructure, after all.

As for free trade, moderation in all things, my friend. If foreign corporations want to partner with US corporations to generate mutual profits internationally, they should go right ahead. But I don't want foreign entities controlled by foreign laws actually doing security-sensitive work right there on the ground -- or docks, or whatever. I don't want to have to worry about the safety and functionality of our systems if some foreign country suffers a revolution.

So much for a free market.

Though according to what I've received, they're giving it up to an American entity. Alwell.

The whining and sniviling isn't over yet. Wait till Halburton gets the contract!
We were tricked! Wah We were tricked! They lied!

They'll just try again later when no ones noticing, they'll secretly buy out the American Company when it all settles down. No real change. Of course if you forget that the UAE homeland workforce are people who are basicly stuck in the country as slave Labor. (They take their vistas when they enter) I didn't like it not because of where the country is located of their appearence and Religion.

And call me whatever the hell you want but I think globalization is bad. It means that eventually they'll just be one worldwide super Corporation that we'll all have to work for. I'm guessing we'll all work for Walmart one day.
They won't have to secretly buy out anything. The language being used is they'll "transfer" to "an American entity." That can easily mean Dubai Ports World, North America, or any other strawman entity set up within the US for this very purpose. (Note: In business lingo, a "strawman" is an entity created specifically to carry out transactions as a front for another entity who doesn't want to be seen to be doing those transactions.)

Here's the International Longshore and Warehouse Union's statement on the subject: http://www.ilwu.org/press/2006/upload/ILWU_portsecurity_rls%2002-23-06%20FINAL.pdf



The Democratic leadership does not care about its "established values." For once, they saw an opportunity and actually seized it, probably because it contradicted their "established values"; it makes them look moderate while still attacking the people in power. It's too bad they had to choose this one and not the countless other opportunities they have had in the past year, opportunities that did not involve appealing to bigotry.
Nothing gets the American voters out better than an appeal to bigotry. I happened to think the DPW deal was a bad idea, but not worse than all the other deals with foreign entities operating strategic infrastructure. I only hope we can use the momentum from this jingoism to make good, non-jingoist, pro-security but non-protectionist laws that will let us make better deals in the future.

The whining and sniviling isn't over yet. Wait till Halburton gets the contract!
We were tricked! Wah We were tricked! They lied!
Unfortunately, some division of Halliburton probably will get it.

But what makes us think Halliburton is connected to DPW anyway? Corporations are pretty incestuous -- and now that they're all "transnational"...who can keep track of who's banging who?

It's funny the way supporters of the DPW deal (who seem also to be supporters of the Bush administration) criticize opponents of the deal for being racist and xenophobic against Arabs/Islam. The Bush administration spent 6 years telling racist, xenophobic Americans that Arabs are our enemies and we're at war with them, and now they're surprised when those same racist, xenophobic Americans kick at the idea of Arabs running six of our ports. File this under "What did you think would happen?"

Unfortunately, some division of Halliburton probably will get it.

But what makes us think Halliburton is connected to DPW anyway? Corporations are pretty incestuous -- and now that they're all "transnational"...who can keep track of who's banging who?

Halburton has been doing business in that area of the world since I was a kid but that doesn't mean they are connected (not at the hip anyway). The reason I say it will likely be Halburton that gets the contract is that is exactly the sort of thing they do, and there are very very few companies in the world that operate on that sort of scale. Drilling down that far into their relationships would take some serious investgative resources that simply are not obtainable except by certain agencies.

It's funny the way supporters of the DPW deal (who seem also to be supporters of the Bush administration) criticize opponents of the deal for being racist and xenophobic against Arabs/Islam. The Bush administration spent 6 years telling racist, xenophobic Americans that Arabs are our enemies and we're at war with them, and now they're surprised when those same racist, xenophobic Americans kick at the idea of Arabs running six of our ports. File this under "What did you think would happen?"

Actually I think this one crosses many lines of ideology. I have found both for and against on both sides and many of the people I find against it are Bush supporters and conservatives. The ones that seem to be for it yelling racist and xenophobic Americans seem to be the ones always yelling racist and Xenophobic Americans as a matter of that's what they have been trained to say.

Of course I wouldn't be suprised if Halburton gets it, they get everything else, I mean didn't they buy the Government back in 2000? I wonder when they're going to sell, the stock must be dropping fast with such mismanagement. I mean their current President is wasting profits and the Vice President\CEO is hated by the consumers.

I doubt the UAE is that jingoist.
They're not going to retaliate. There's nothing to retaliate for. I think the UAE is the only party to this deal that has a grip on reality. They do billions of dollars of business with us, and I think they could see quite well that backing down on the ports deal will defuse the issue, while pushing it, as Bush was threatening, would likely create a jingoistic ripple effect that would endanger their other US transactions. Republican Senators have met with DPW and agreements were made that they will not suffer from getting out of this deal -- that means that they will be reimbursed for any moneys they've already paid out and any already executed documents will simply be nullified, as if this never happened. They lose nothing and save much.

And I'm not kidding myself -- we needed to open this debate domestically, in my opinion, but I'm certain our enemies will use this to prove how much Americans hate Arabs. We just have to prove them wrong by creating better regulations regarding all foreign entities from all nations.

But if anyone comes out of this looking good, it's Dubai Ports World.

The whining and sniviling isn't over yet. Wait till Halburton gets the contract!
We were tricked! Wah We were tricked! They lied!

I wouldn't be a tad surprised. Frankly, I saw nothing that would've changed much at these ports.

Goes to show that Unions still have some power left in this nation and that politians need too look at all the evidence and not what suits them.

Halburton has been doing business in that area of the world since I was a kid but that doesn't mean they are connected (not at the hip anyway). The reason I say it will likely be Halburton that gets the contract is that is exactly the sort of thing they do, and there are very very few companies in the world that operate on that sort of scale. Drilling down that far into their relationships would take some serious investgative resources that simply are not obtainable except by certain agencies.
It's actually not that difficult at all, but it is time-consuming, particularly when you're dealing with transnational corporations. The thing is, at some point the members of corporate boards of directors do have to be public information, more or less. You can look them up. You just have to search about for where they are listed from country to country. For instance, in the US, they are listed in the state in which the entity is incorporated. That might not be the state where they have their headquarters or the state where they do the bulk of their business. But regardless, all public corporate info is listed by each state's secretary of state corporations office or division. If you can find out where DPW's board of directors is listed, you can find the connection easily.

I wonder if DPW has a website. If they do, they probably post information for investors, which will include their annual reports, which will probably list their board of directors. That's how private corporations do it. I don't know about state-owned corps.

Here's a fun toy -- unfortunately it hasn't been updated in a while -- but see how easily you can find the connection between, say, Halliburton and Time Warner (which of course is a whole different problem):

http://www.theyrule.net

Actually I think this one crosses many lines of ideology. I have found both for and against on both sides and many of the people I find against it are Bush supporters and conservatives. The ones that seem to be for it yelling racist and xenophobic Americans seem to be the ones always yelling racist and Xenophobic Americans as a matter of that's what they have been trained to say.
Although I tend to disagree with you on most things, I have to give you this point. Jingoism is a game everyone can play, and there are certainly enough racist xenophobes in America to go around. And there are also several reasons, both bad and good, to oppose the DPW deal.

Although I tend to disagree with you on most things, I have to give you this point. Jingoism is a game everyone can play, and there are certainly enough racist xenophobes in America to go around. And there are also several reasons, both bad and good, to oppose the DPW deal.

I agree 100%

Of course I wouldn't be suprised if Halburton gets it, they get everything else, I mean didn't they buy the Government back in 2000? I wonder when they're going to sell, the stock must be dropping fast with such mismanagement. I mean their current President is wasting profits and the Vice President\CEO is hated by the consumers.

One must be very real about this though, of course, many playfuly like to tout the idea Haliburton has bought the government with its Iraqi contracts and oil drilling world wide and military supplies etc.. But realistically speaking, Haliburton is a company on a size and scale unmatched in its industry, and they are the best at what they do. There is a reason why American companies didn't control these ports to begin with. Simply said, few if any American companies have the resources to operate on this level... infact there was a large bidding war for the contracts Dubai eventually won, and porting world wide is primarly run by British, Dutch, and a variaty of other international companies (none of which are American). Haliburton is one of the few with the resources in place to actually take this task, and I feel it will be a proper slap in the face of those critics of this deal, as generally speaking they are also among the most out spoken against Haliburton!

I wonder if DPW has a website. If they do, they probably post information for investors, which will include their annual reports, which will probably list their board of directors. That's how private corporations do it. I don't know about state-owned corps.

Found something. Here's the site for at least one of their divisions: http://www.dpworld.ae/default.asp

It's so cute. They even have a "kids zone." And job opportunities. The management team section is scanty, but it's a place to start. Happy hunting, all, for that Halliburton connection. Remember, all you have to do is act like an investor -- you know, like you want to give them money -- they'll tell you anything you want.

One must be very real about this though, of course, many playfuly like to tout the idea Haliburton has bought the government with its Iraqi contracts and oil drilling world wide and military supplies etc.. But realistically speaking, Haliburton is a company on a size and scale unmatched in its industry, and they are the best at what they do. There is a reason why American companies didn't control these ports to begin with. Simply said, few if any American companies have the resources to operate on this level... infact there was a large bidding war for the contracts Dubai eventually won, and porting world wide is primarly run by British, Dutch, and a variaty of other international companies (none of which are American). Haliburton is one of the few with the resources in place to actually take this task, and I feel it will be a proper slap in the face of those critics of this deal, as generally speaking they are also among the most out spoken against Haliburton!
You're right, it would be a slap in the face to opponents of the deal, and when we've got our slaps, they'll give you yours -- in your wallet. (How many billions have they overcharged us in Iraq so far?)

Well, now it appears that it was an inside job after all...

White House Asked Dubai Ports to Pull Out (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

and...

Looks like Terdblossom himself is involved too (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/10/politics/main1388791.shtml)

"CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports the announcement came about after the company's consultations with White House political strategist Karl Rove."

Xenophobia? Real security concerns? Or, just more politics? Rove being in the fray suggests the later.

Well, now it appears that it was an inside job after all...

White House Asked Dubai Ports to Pull Out (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

and...

Looks like Terdblossom himself is involved too (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/10/politics/main1388791.shtml)

"CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports the announcement came about after the company's consultations with White House political strategist Karl Rove."

Xenophobia? Real security concerns? Or, just more politics? Rove being in the fray suggests the later.God, I hate that stupid face. He's got such a stupid face very much. :mad:

There was an interesting article in NPR Morning Edition. There is so much wiggle room in the official statement that it could mean just about anything. People are making assumptions about what it means, and we all know the saying about what happens when you ASSUME.