Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Ports thread continued - Second UAE deal announced (factories this time) p#49

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: I was ____ now I'm
against this, still against it
54.55%
against this, for it or neutral about it
6.82%
for this, still for it
15.91%
for this, against it or neutral about it
2.27%
neutral about it, still neutral about it
18.18%
neutral about it, for it
2.27%
neutral about it, against it
0
0%
I think this specific debate is central to the issue of port security
4.55%
I think other aspects of port security are more important than this specific debate
11.36%
I think the CFIUS process needs to be reworked
9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Ports thread continued - Second UAE deal announced (factories this time) p#49

Old 03-01-06, 12:38 PM
  #1  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Ports thread continued - Second UAE deal announced (factories this time) p#49

I know the other thread is not near the 1k mark yet but since it already has a poll I can't add one to that I was just curious if people's views have changed about this whole thing in the weeks since it became front page news.


BTW here's an update as well....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday tempered calls for an immediate vote to block a Dubai-based company's takeover of some U.S. port operations as
President Bush prodded them to avoid a confrontation.

Returning to the Capitol in force for the first time since news of DP World's takeover broke, lawmakers from both parties criticized the White House for failing to let them know about the deal before it became public.

But many also said steps taken over the weekend by the White House and the United Arab Emirates company for a 45-day investigation of the transaction's security issues reassured them and negated the need for legislation for now.

"We should allow that to proceed," said Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate
Homeland Security Committee.

Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., brokered a deal between the company and the Bush administration to agree to a new investigation of security issues related to DP World's plan to assume significant operations at six U.S. ports.

Republican leaders were looking to curtail a revolt by members of the president's own party, and by Tuesday it appeared they had succeeded.

"I'm very pleased where we are today," Frist said.

Some lawmakers, though, warned they would move forward with legislation if the upcoming 45-day investigation of security issues was cursory. Bills relating to the issue are piling up, but there are no plans for votes on any so far.

Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his legislation could give Congress an opportunity to block the deal if lawmakers are dissatisfied with the results of the security review. But he suggested he would not urge an immediate vote on it.

"It has to be a weapon held in reserve to ensure there is a real investigation," King, R-N.Y., told the Associated Press.

Although the new investigation has yet to begin, the president said he still supports DP World's plan to assume control of operations now handled by a British company.

"My position hasn't changed," Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Bush, the final arbiter of the new investigation, suggested there was no reason to think it would produce any different outcome than the government's initial review and urged Congress to be careful.

"What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's OK for a British company to manage the ports but not a company that has been secured — that has been cleared for security purposes — from the Arab world?" he asked.

In an interview later with ABC News, Bush said he would stand by the deal, adding, "The only way it won't happen is if there is a true security threat to the United States of America."

Democrats accused the president of prematurely determining the outcome of an investigation that the administration should have done in the first place.

"Let's have a real investigation and a vote here in the Senate," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "What the president has agreed to is no review."

"If the investigation proves to be a charade, if it's not truly independent and thorough, then the bipartisan legislation that we introduced yesterday will pass through the Senate and the House like a hot knife through butter," Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said.

Lawmakers said the political uproar could have been avoided if the White House had kept lawmakers in the loop on the DP World deal.

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the White House was "slow to react" to the criticism. Lott also called the president's threat last week to veto legislation Congress passed "very unwise." "It offended me. He threatened me," Lott added.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., who has backed the White House on the DP World deal, said he found "flaws" in the Bush administration's earlier consideration of it. He also expressed optimism the government will approve the transaction after a lengthier investigation.

Also Tuesday, Bush administration officials and the company's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, sought to reassure lawmakers the deal was prudent.

Before the Senate Commerce Committee, Bilkey said DP World spends large amounts on security already and recognizes that its business would be significantly disrupted if any problems were traced to the company.

"We couldn't afford for anything to go wrong," Bilkey told senators.

At the hearing, Democrats raised a new concern over the deal, pointing to a Jerusalem Post report that said DP World's parent company helps enforce the Arab boycott of
Israel. "We should not be rewarding companies that support discrimination against our key strategic ally," said Sen.
John Kerry, D-Mass.

In a statement, Michael Moore, DP World's senior vice president, said the company does not discriminate and it has long-standing business relationships with Israeli companies.

In New Jersey Wednesday, a federal judge is to hear the state's request for an investigation of the deal to allow DP World's takeover of some port operations, including Port Newark.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine also is seeking permission to inspect documents the company gave to a federal committee reviewing the deal.

In a reply to New Jersey's lawsuit, the Justice Department said the Bush administration's decision to conduct a second review of potential risks in the ports deal renders the lawsuit irrelevant. The federal government also argued in its filing Monday that documents sought by the state are confidential, and urged the court to reject the demand.

Lawyers for the state filed briefs Tuesday arguing that the company's control of Port Newark could adversely affect national security and safety could be compromised if the state is denied access to documents and information.

In London on Tuesday, a high court judge delayed until Thursday a decision on whether to approve DP World's takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Two shareholders and a joint venture partner of the British company objected to the deal. The judge had been expected to approve the deal Tuesday.
nemein is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 12:59 PM
  #2  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,514
I vote against the concept of this thread because it bit off my thread.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 01:03 PM
  #3  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Oh no it's public, I think it's a trap.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 01:05 PM
  #4  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by VinVega
I vote against the concept of this thread because it bit off my thread.
Sorry about that I thought it would be interesting though to see if people's feelings have changed as they learned more about what's going on. I strongly suspect the majority of us here had never heard about or given this issue much thought before it "broke" a couple of weeks ago.
nemein is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 01:35 PM
  #5  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,514
Originally Posted by nemein
Sorry about that I thought it would be interesting though to see if people's feelings have changed as they learned more about what's going on. I strongly suspect the majority of us here had never heard about or given this issue much thought before it "broke" a couple of weeks ago.
I'm just kidding. I agree that the numbers will be different as a lot of reactions to my poll were kneejerk, but that's what I love. I'm still against it and not because Bush is in favor of it. I think the deal will go through however.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 01:53 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by VinVega
I'm just kidding. I agree that the numbers will be different as a lot of reactions to my poll were kneejerk, but that's what I love. I'm still against it and not because Bush is in favor of it. I think the deal will go through however.
One poster concluded in the other thread that people opposed are either prejudiced or bashing Bush. I truly don't feel I am opposed to the deal for either reason.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 02:00 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,446
You have to remember if you are even in a SLIGHT disagreement with Bush, you're a Bush Bashing Homosexual Liberal Wack-O Who Lives In San Francisco And Must Know Barbara Boxer.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 02:45 PM
  #8  
exm
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Across the Hudson [email protected]: Hoboken. LET'S GO YANKS!
Posts: 2,630
Was against it, am still against it.

This will be by far the worse post-9/11 decision of GWB.

Last edited by exm; 03-01-06 at 02:56 PM.
exm is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 02:52 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,721
On the actual deal, I am neutral, but I am against the way Bush has handled it.

I mean, really, a veto? Just for that, he deserves his numbers to drop below 20%.
Ranger is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 08:02 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,446
Veto = Compromise in Bush's World.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 08:04 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 10,470
So.. now that the repubs seem to be for it; when is this deal going to be completed?
huzefa is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 11:35 PM
  #12  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This can't be. It's going to be interesting to see how the liberal media deal with this. Maybe they simply have no answer at all.

Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a9...0779e2340.html

Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.

Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman.

Ports backlash makes Arab investors wary

On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress.

However, Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governments”.


Tide of populist anger swells in US heartlands

Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.”
He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.

Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai.

The backlash against Dubai’s takeover has seen some lawmakers in Washington highlight the UAE’s alleged role in helping to finance September 11.

Last edited by Myster X; 03-02-06 at 12:29 AM.
Myster X is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 11:53 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
You have to remember if you are even in a SLIGHT disagreement with Bush, you're a Bush Bashing Homosexual Liberal Wack-O Who Lives In San Francisco And Must Know Barbara Boxer.
You have to remember if you are even in a SLIGHT agreement with Bush, you're a gun carrying, abortion doctor killing, war monger who wants to kill children and starve old people.

Ahhhh, I think my post added as much to the thread as yours.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-01-06, 11:56 PM
  #14  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by exm
Was against it, am still against it.

This will be by far the worse post-9/11 decision of GWB.

Did I just read that correctly? Iraq is not on top?
Myster X is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 07:03 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Ranger
On the actual deal, I am neutral, but I am against the way Bush has handled it.

I mean, really, a veto? Just for that, he deserves his numbers to drop below 20%.
Considering the ramifications of what may very well happen if the deal were to not go through - I think a veto might very well be in order. Of course it wouldn't be a smart domestic political thing to do.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 07:24 AM
  #16  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,514
Originally Posted by Myster X
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This can't be. It's going to be interesting to see how the liberal media deal with this. Maybe they simply have no answer at all.
Clinton is wrong.

I do think it's funny that he "supports" his wife's position while being against it at the same time. Maybe ole' Bill can charm his way out of that corner. He usually can.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 08:40 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Times Square
Posts: 12,133
Still against this, and the assurances of GWB that this poses no threat to our security may be as valid as his assurances that there are WMDs in Iraq, that we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq, etc.

Given his track record, Bush predictions are no better indicators of the future than what some storefront fortune-teller might offer. Both simply spout what they think the suckers want to hear.
marty888 is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 09:39 AM
  #18  
exm
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Across the Hudson [email protected]: Hoboken. LET'S GO YANKS!
Posts: 2,630
Originally Posted by Myster X
Did I just read that correctly? Iraq is not on top?
I'm willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt with Iraq: I am willing to believe that our president had the right intentions with the invasion.

This however, is ignoring the facts that are out there (see 9/11 report).
exm is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 09:42 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Bush's political 'salvation' lies in the fact that a good portion of the American people associate the War on Terror with the War in Iraq. They don't see the, what is to me, the obvious separation.

If they ever do - woe be to George W. Bush.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 09:45 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,608
I'm against it simply because I would like to see an American company run American ports. Is it too much to ask to have an American company be in charge of something in America?
tcoursen is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 09:47 AM
  #21  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by tcoursen
I'm against it simply because I would like to see an American company run American ports. Is it too much to ask to have an American company be in charge of something in America?
They are free to bid on things just like everyone else. That's how the market society works, or are you saying we should start nationalizing some industries
nemein is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 09:52 AM
  #22  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,514
Originally Posted by nemein
They are free to bid on things just like everyone else. That's how the market society works, or are you saying we should start nationalizing some industries
There might be a coup and British rule would be reinstated.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 10:14 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Interesting breaking news on CNN...

Israeli shipping company strongly endorses Dubai ports deal, acknowledges Israel trades with Dubai and has ships that call on port in Dubai, CNN has learned.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 10:18 AM
  #24  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Please understand. I posted this on the last thread. There was no bidding in the conventional sense. The Dubai company bought out the operations from the English company. I'm sure that if an American company said they would pay more, it would have been sold to the American company.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-02-06, 10:42 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,608
Originally Posted by nemein
They are free to bid on things just like everyone else. That's how the market society works, or are you saying we should start nationalizing some industries
Well then, when we are free to bid on things and own things in their country and it be a free and open soceity, then let them bid on things here.

This is also a differant type of industry and something that is vital and important to our national security. Should be just allow outside countries to bid on running our military? Port security, port inspections, etc. are very important. If a dirty bomb is ever going to make it into the country one of the methods may very well be through a port. Do you want to leave that up to a company that isn't an american company and doesn't really care all that much about america? They are in it for the profit, not because they really give a damn about our security. And this isn't a knock on UAE, it is a knock on all foreign interests. Seriously, do you think that a company half way around the globe is really going to care all that much about anything other than making a profit off the port operations? They will do whatever the bare minimum is to comply with whatever rules the US government puts in place. Their profit margin will be the underlying motive, not our security.

The government already controls and runs similar type operations. In NY/NJ the Port Authority runs the airports and I thought the ports, but I guess they don't do the ports. So if you can have a government agency run the airports why can't they manage the ports?
tcoursen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.