• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

White House selling six major American ports to Arabs? Bush says yes to deal!

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What's this?

President Bush gave "his approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports."?

Presisdent Bush is selling out to the country that is responsible for 9/11?

That plan sound treasonous and dangerous to me.

What's up with that? Anyone else confused here?







http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/congress.ports.ap/index.html

Lawmakers urges White House to review Arab port takeover
Critics contend deal could affect national security


WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. lawmakers formally asked the Bush administration Thursday to reconsider its approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

The lawmakers, including four senators and three House members, sharply criticized the UAE as inconsistent in its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

They also said the country was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

The Bush administration defended its approval of the sale. A spokesman for the White House National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said Thursday that security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."

The Associated Press reported Saturday that government-owned Dubai Ports World had won approval for the $6.8 billion deal from a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

Since then, a growing faction in Congress wants the White House to reconsider its approval of DP World's purchase of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which British shareholders approved Monday...
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,910
Reaction score
13,239
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Maybe he's trying to compete with Clinton selling technology to China?
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Captain America said:
Maybe he's trying to compete with Clinton selling technology to China?
Or with Richard Perle who wanted to sell te US military's phone network to a Chinese military intelligence agency against the recommendations of the FBI and the NSA. Funny how such a guy got to be in charge of the President's Defense Policy Advisory Board.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Captain America said:
Maybe he's trying to compete with Clinton selling technology to China?

There you go again with Clinton, boy, you guys are obsessed with that man aren't you?

At least you didn't mention his pee pee this time. :roll:
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,910
Reaction score
13,239
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ohhhhhh....you said pee-pee. I'm gonna tell.:mrgreen:
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KidRocks said:
What's this?

President Bush gave "his approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports."?

Presisdent Bush is selling out to the country that is responsible for 9/11?

That plan sound treasonous and dangerous to me.

What's up with that? Anyone else confused here?

Leave it to a resident Leftist to completely mischaracterize thus entire deal. First of all,the White House isn't selling anything here (contrary to your thread title). OPERATIONS of these ports are already run by a British company that is being run by an Emirati government-owned company.

Also, while the record of the UAE in the war on terror is questionable at best, it by no means was responsible for 9/11.

Having said that, I don't agree that the US government should approve the transfer. From what I have read from links provided by another poster, Bush hasn't made a final approval yet. It has merely been recommended.

Now, I know you have an irrational hatred of President Bush. However, letting that hatred cause you to misrepresent the situation does not do you any credit at all.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
Leave it to a resident Leftist to completely mischaracterize thus entire deal. First of all,the White House isn't selling anything here (contrary to your thread title). OPERATIONS of these ports are already run by a British company that is being run by an Emirati government-owned company.

Also, while the record of the UAE in the war on terror is questionable at best, it by no means was responsible for 9/11.

Having said that, I don't agree that the US government should approve the transfer. From what I have read from links provided by another poster, Bush hasn't made a final approval yet. It has merely been recommended.

Now, I know you have an irrational hatred of President Bush. However, letting that hatred cause you to misrepresent the situation does not do you any credit at all.

The quoted may have mixed up Saudi Arabia for UAE, but selling land or just operations to a foreign government is a stupid idea - UK or UAE.

However, the Bush agenda isn't designed to make the country more secure; it is designed to pursue neo-conservative idealogic directives. In the case it is privatization at detriment to real security. It is pathetic, but not surprising.

If the administration wants to make the borders more secure, they would nationalize the services - but that would be a neo-con no no. One only has to look at the southern US border to realize that in a choice between serving corporate interests and security, they will side with big business.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
python416 said:
The quoted may have mixed up Saudi Arabia for UAE, but selling land or just operations to a foreign government is a stupid idea - UK or UAE.

They are already run by a foreign corporation

However, the Bush agenda isn't designed to make the country more secure; it is designed to pursue neo-conservative idealogic directives. In the case it is privatization at detriment to real security. It is pathetic, but not surprising.

Well, President Bush (for all of his imperfections) is doing a far better job than his predecessor who didn't give national security the time of day.

If the administration wants to make the borders more secure, they would nationalize the services - but that would be a neo-con no no. One only has to look at the southern US border to realize that in a choice between serving corporate interests and security, they will side with big business.

I wouldn't argue against making sure they were run by a properly vetted American company, but I would be opposed to nationalizing them and having them run by the government.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
Well, President Bush (for all of his imperfections) is doing a far better job than his predecessor who didn't give national security the time of day.

Lies, lies, lies.

I'm not speaking to you in particular, ludahai, but I'd be very interested to know if Republicans have orgasms when they continue to lie about the Clinton record on terrorism?

Try not to get any on the keyboard.

I will say that this topic should be the story everyone is talking about, and certainly not the Cheney hunting accident.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ludahai said:
Leave it to a resident Leftist to completely mischaracterize thus entire deal. First of all,the White House isn't selling anything here (contrary to your thread title). OPERATIONS of these ports are already run by a British company that is being run by an Emirati government-owned company.

Also, while the record of the UAE in the war on terror is questionable at best, it by no means was responsible for 9/11.

Having said that, I don't agree that the US government should approve the transfer. From what I have read from links provided by another poster, Bush hasn't made a final approval yet. It has merely been recommended.

Now, I know you have an irrational hatred of President Bush. However, letting that hatred cause you to misrepresent the situation does not do you any credit at all.


Why let the facts get in the way of left wing spin and rhetoric?:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
They are already run by a foreign corporation



Well, President Bush (for all of his imperfections) is doing a far better job than his predecessor who didn't give national security the time of day.



I wouldn't argue against making sure they were run by a properly vetted American company, but I would be opposed to nationalizing them and having them run by the government.

So regulation is what you are proposing? Or are you suggesting that we do not apply national standards to the operation of border entry points? If you do think national standards should be applied, what method of verification do you think would work best?
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
Lies, lies, lies.

I'm not speaking to you in particular, ludahai, but I'd be very interested to know if Republicans have orgasms when they continue to lie about the Clinton record on terrorism?

Try not to get any on the keyboard.

I will say that this topic should be the story everyone is talking about, and certainly not the Cheney hunting accident.

Well, I am not a Republican, but it isn't a lie that Clinton's record was abysmal.

I DO agree that this is FAR more important than a hunting accident that happens occasionally all over the country.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
python416 said:
So regulation is what you are proposing? Or are you suggesting that we do not apply national standards to the operation of border entry points? If you do think national standards should be applied, what method of verification do you think would work best?

Nationalization is having the government run ALL functions of the ports. That is a wet dream of the New Left and their desire for government to own and control as much as possible.

American companies should run operations. ALL employees should be US citizens and receive background checks. Appropriate authorities in Customs should set all regulations in coordination with Homeland Security and they should be enforced. Any company NOT in compliance loses the contract, PERIOD.

Will this happen? No, NEITHER party would allow it. But it SHOULD!
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ludahai said:
American companies should run operations. ALL employees should be US citizens and receive background checks. Appropriate authorities in Customs should set all regulations in coordination with Homeland Security and they should be enforced. Any company NOT in compliance loses the contract, PERIOD.

Exactly, I think it is sad if we have to rely on another country to run our ports. We are supposed to be a superpower yet this increasing outsourcing of jobs, other countries running some ports, etc, is leading to the overall strength of our country diminishing.

I am very concerned about this trend in America and hope that ends soon.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
13 Febuary 2006

DP World to acquire P&O
We are delighted to announce that the shareholders of P&O have approved the sale of shares to DP World. At an EGM held in London this afternoon, the shareholders voted over 99% in favour of the DP World acquisition. This means that the process of transferring ownership can now begin, and we expect for this to be confirmed by the court on 2nd March 2006.

Keep in mind that Dubai World isn't just taking over ports...

They are taking over a company that happened to control those ports...

This is nothing more than a result from the takeover...

If HomeDepot buys Ace Hardware, they get their stores...But if Ace Hardware also owned a hammer making factory, Home Depot ends up getting that too...

BFD...:shrug:

Personally?...I think there should've been something in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.'s contract that states that the ownership of these ports automatically goes back to the Government if that company loses control of them...
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Paul said:
Exactly, I think it is sad if we have to rely on another country to run our ports. We are supposed to be a superpower yet this increasing outsourcing of jobs, other countries running some ports, etc, is leading to the overall strength of our country diminishing.

I am very concerned about this trend in America and hope that ends soon.

I agree.

I do take issue with how one of DP's resident Leftists completely mischaracterized the nature of the transation in the threat title and opening post. The radicals of the New Left have no shame.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
Keep in mind that Dubai World isn't just taking over ports...

They are taking over a company that happened to control those ports...

This is nothing more than a result from the takeover...

If HomeDepot buys Ace Hardware, they get their stores...But if Ace Hardware also owned a hammer making factory, Home Depot ends up getting that too...

BFD...:shrug:

Personally?...I think there should've been something in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.'s contract that states that the ownership of these ports automatically goes back to the Government if that company loses control of them...

I agree whole heartedly. I further think that the White House should not sit idly by and let this happen, nor should the Congress. This is not a partisan issue.. this is a matter of national security. Isn't that the reason the Dept of Homeland Security was developed to begin with?

My car radio was tuned to the AM station that I listen to on the way home from work, and when I got back in it again, Michael Savage was on. Now while I don't agree with him on MANY issues, he invited Charles Schumer on to discuss this very issue, and I found myself nodding in agreement to everything they said. Both are calling for a US company with US citizens securing those ports, and both are in disbelief that the White House has taken a blase faire attitude about the potential scenario's that could arrise... i.e. terrorists beginning to infiltrate not only the company, our borders, and the smuggling of dangerous weaponry into this country, beings as only about 5% of all containers are checked. I don't know about you all, but that just scares the hell out of me, and beings I grew up just down the river from Philadelphia, that's a scenario we cannot let happen... PERIOD.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
debate_junkie said:
he invited Charles Schumer on to discuss this very issue, and I found myself nodding in agreement to everything they said. Both are calling for a US company with US citizens securing those ports, and both are in disbelief that the White House has taken a blase faire attitude about the potential scenario's that could arrise...

STOP THE PRESSES! I AGREE WITH REP. CHUCK SCHUMER?!?!?!?! WOW!!!!

Seriously, are you sure he said US companies and not the US government? Wow, this proves that even die-in-the-wool New Leftists are right ONCE IN A WHILE!
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,954
Reaction score
16,568
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
KidRocks said:
What's this?

President Bush gave "his approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports."?

Presisdent Bush is selling out to the country that is responsible for 9/11?

That plan sound treasonous and dangerous to me.

What's up with that? Anyone else confused here?
.


The government should not be allowing our ports to be sold to foriegn entities.What next are going to give military contracts to china and let them make our equipment?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jamesrage said:
The government should not be allowing our ports to be sold to foriegn entities.What next are going to give military contracts to china and let them make our equipment?
Not at all...

Clinton already sold them the information so the could make the equipment for themselves...:shrug:
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
ludahai said:
STOP THE PRESSES! I AGREE WITH REP. CHUCK SCHUMER?!?!?!?! WOW!!!!

Seriously, are you sure he said US companies and not the US government? Wow, this proves that even die-in-the-wool New Leftists are right ONCE IN A WHILE!

I am positive he said US companies... cuz if he'd said US government, I think Savage would have ripped him a new one on that one LOL
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,954
Reaction score
16,568
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:
Not at all...

Clinton already sold them the information so the could make the equipment for themselves...:shrug:

With all the horseshit the government is pullig we might as well outsource our government to another country.The government is not taking care of our borders,the government is handing out money to almost every country that wants foriegn aid,Clinton gave the chinese secrets,bush is letting our ports be sold to foriegn interest,Both parties have basicly let our jobs walk out of the country,and certian politicians feel the need to bash our troops bash our country and every other ****ed up thing under the sun.Surely outsourcing the government would not make things any worse.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
debate_junkie said:
I am positive he said US companies... cuz if he'd said US government, I think Savage would have ripped him a new one on that one LOL

I trust YOU that you heard him say that. The real question is do I trust CHUCKIE that he actually MEANT that!
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jamesrage said:
,bush is letting our ports be sold to foriegn interest,

The operation of those ports had already BEEN sold to a foreign interest, though I don't know WHEN that occurred.

Both parties have basicly let our jobs walk out of the country,and certian politicians feel the need to bash our troops bash our country and every other ****ed up thing under the sun.Surely outsourcing the government would not make things any worse.

I agree completely. Charity and security both begin at home. Security is enhanced by securing democracies abroad, but it BEGINS at home.
 
Top Bottom