Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 17:29
VIEWED: 8053
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I gather you're a brit?

Nope. Born in the USA.

And once again, Bush is not my guy. I just happen to support the government's position on the sale of port operations to Ports World. I think that the Republicans in Congress who oppose it are playing to the xenophobia of their constituents in the run-up to the mid-term elections. The Dems are just doing their usual knee-jerk and opposing anything Bush proposes (DT. Are you sure you're not a Democrat in denial?)

BTW, I heard from my cousin's wife's best friend that it's actually safe for P&O to sell their business to Ports World. I don't have the documentation, but you can trust me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor,

This is just not true. Security would be one of the responsibilities of the company. Bush says that that would be 'overseen' by the coast guard, but that's really just in theory. In reality, it's potentially a revolving door.

Also, and this is the big issue for me, we're missing the point. All of us.

This isn't about terrorism. This company let AlQaeda in an out, sure, but the real revolving door is drugs. This whole deal is about drugs. Anyone of the republicans over here surely is aware of the Clinton drug ring, certainly team pirate knows about this, and the republicans might not know it, but Bush is in the coke biz himself, and fine, say your babble, spout your precious leader line, but I know people who went to college with him, and Bush tried to sell him coke then. Anyway, Bush/Clinton/Drugs. Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Drugs. UAE/America/Columbia, Drugs/Drugs/Drugs. I hope this keeps it simple. Big revolving door of drugs. Whether or not you accept that Bush is in on it, this drug threat is real, and if you do accept it, then this conclusion is obvious.

Your testimonial claims aside, I still don't see the black helicopters overhead. Bush tried to sell someone coke back in college ? Even if true, so what? Many go through that stage, and grow out of it. There's nothing to indicate that Bush has somehow carried on through the years to become a major player in the world drug trade. And as for Clinton? He's the only US President I know of in modern times to not release his medical records to the press. Does that mean he delt in drugs too? I have no idea. But security will be handled by the same folks as it is now, and it's not 'overseen' by DPW. There's nothing theoretical about that.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:41 PM

And as for companies owned by foreign governments controlling US ports, it's already happening.

Quote:
Neil Davidson, a container ports analyst at London-based Drewry Shipping Consultants, indicates "the US container port industry would be unworkable without companies controlled by foreign governments. Proposed emergency legislation by senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez would prevent foreign governments from controlling US container port assets."

"Among key companies that could be barred from operating US container terminals are China Shipping, the state-owned Chinese line, which has a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles, and APL, a line based in Oakland, California, and owned by Singapore's state-owned NOL," and "There are a number of major state-owned shipping lines that have terminals in the US," Davidson notes.

http://hnn.us/articles/22085.html

Where's the outrage about those Godless Commies and Uber-Capitalists running our ports?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
I get most of my info from the BBC World Service site, AP, local news, and the Washington Post. I wouldn't know Hannity from O'Reilly if they were standing naked in Macy's window.

Okay, sorry, my stuff, I was ranting at them. They used to be objective conservatives. Now Bush says jump and they say how high.

I did mention this earlier in this thread -- and it may've been passed over, so I'll mention it again...

As of Tuesday (when I first heard about this), Sean Hannity was against the U.A.E. company controlling U.S. ports, and said he thought the President was making a mistake.

As of yesterday, he still felt the same way.

And this isn't the only time I've heard Hannity publically disagree with the President.

Regarding O'Reilly, I don't have a chance to see him anymore, but I saw O'Reilly on Bush's case all the time -- particularly about immigration and the cost of fuel (two of O'Reilly's pet peeves). O'Reilly also disagrees with the President on just about every social issue (including the right to life, etc.).

While Hannity rarely disagrees with Bush (as do I), when he does, he's very open about it (as am I -- as in this current instance). O'Reilly probably disagrees with Bush more than he agrees with him.

I honestly don't see how anyone could think they're Bush puppets.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:43 PM

Quote:
And once again, Bush is not my guy. I just happen to support the government's position on the sale of port operations to Ports World. I think that the Republicans in Congress who oppose it are playing to the xenophobia of their constituents in the run-up to the mid-term elections.

Bush ISN'T your guy? Wow. I would never have know had you not said so.

I'm just curious- whatever happened to "We won't do business with nations that support terrorism"? I suppose it was impratical, seeing as we would have to cross Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan off our list. BTW, those three nations recognized the Taliban, funnel money to terrorists, and two of the three were the source of the 9-11 terrorists. I suppose you could claim that Saudi Arabia is riven by internal dissension and that we only deal with the "good guys" (the Royal Family, see your post where you call the Saudi government "evil") but the UAE's banks and shipping companies are government owned (something we apparently can't manage) and are directly responsible for supporting terrorists.

Quote:
Where's the outrage about those Godless Commies and Uber-Capitalists running our ports?

Right here Geezer. In fact, I and a bunch of other Angelinos prevented Chinese from taking over a historic site in San Pedro in order to double their terminal size.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:17 PM

Taking the insults as read...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
..but the UAE's banks and shipping companies are government owned (something we apparently can't manage) and are directly responsible for supporting terrorists.

And for the umptyumpth time, someone give me a link or a site showing any evidence that World Ports is supporting terrorists. Everyone here says it like it's common knowledge, but when I check the Washington Post, BBC, AP, etc., no one has anything but good to say about them.

Quote:
Right here Geezer. In fact, I and a bunch of other Angelinos prevented Chinese from taking over a historic site in San Pedro in order to double their terminal size.

Congratulations on your civic action, although I seem to remember Congress had something to do with that as well. Now were you involved because it was the Commies, or because it threatened a historic site?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:14 PM

Congress had something to do with it because people at my level raised a fuss. That's democracy in action I suppose. I probably would have been mildly against demolishing the old facility - but probably not enough to take action- if it had been a US shipping company. But knowing the history of COSCO and it's involvement in the Hong Kong government made the whole deal "extra crispy" and actually propelled me to "do something", even if it was only to send money to Huell Howser and write to my Congressional reps.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Congress had something to do with it because people at my level raised a fuss. That's democracy in action I suppose. I probably would have been mildly against demolishing the old facility - but probably not enough to take action- if it had been a US shipping company. But knowing the history of COSCO and it's involvement in the Hong Kong government made the whole deal "extra crispy" and actually propelled me to "do something", even if it was only to send money to Huell Howser and write to my Congressional reps.

Thanks for the followup. And now:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And for the umptyumpth(+1) time, someone give me a link or a site showing any evidence that World Ports is supporting terrorists. Everyone here says it like it's common knowledge, but when I check the Washington Post, BBC, AP, etc., no one has anything but good to say about them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, February 24, 2006 9:23 PM

more later

EDITED TO ADD: Port Authority and Port operations are very fragmented. Certain aspects are under Federal control, some under the shipping compmany and others under the specific Port Authority. Each Port Authority seems to be somewhat hand-crafted: the LA Port Authority charter was written in 1921 (or something like that) and is different from others.

Given time, I'd like to compare and contrast to airports, which are (I believe) entirely under Federal regulation (FAA and TSA).
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

FLETCH2

Friday, February 24, 2006 10:40 PM

So let's see if I got this straight.

After spending untold billions of dollars on homeland security it now turns out that our REAL security is in the hands of a British shipping company. We trust them to guard the US's back and keep the bad guys from shipping bad stuff through US ports. If that ownership was ever to go to anyone less trustworthy, then we're in trouble.

So when did P&O become the first line of defence for the US taxpayer? How much does the US Government pay them for that? Do they charge a premium over and above handling freight?

Could this have something to do with the fact that 90% of incoming cargo to the US is still not checked almost 5 years after 9/11?

What about the longest unguarded border in the world? What about a southern boarder that we know from occasional intercepts can let drug lords and people smugglers drive a semi full of contraband across the border?

I'm sure if you have a nuke you need to get here then docking in Bogata and driving up through Mexico is still infinately easier. I'm pretty sure the Mexican drug cartels will garentee delivery for a whole lot less that $6bn.

Or I suppose you could see if P&O will guard the Mexican border for you. You guys say they have an excellent reputation.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE