Breaking: Bush Defends Port Purchase, Says He'll Veto Any Bill To Hold Up The Deal - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Breaking: Bush Defends Port Purchase, Says He'll Veto Any Bill To Hold Up The Deal (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:54:05 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
yet again another stupid decision if true. it's gonna be damned hard to vote this next election. i can't vote for a dem, and i am sick of holding my nose and voteing for idiots that make decisions like this routinely.

Insane....he hasn't vetoed ONE piece of bad legislation and NOW he decides to get some spine.

I hope congress can get a veto-proof vote on this and tell him to stick it.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:55:30 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Much ado about nothing.

Yes, much like his actions to secure and defend our borders.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:55:51 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:

This has nothing to do with security. A British company owns it now and nothing will change if the UAE company gets it. The dock workers stay, the security stays, US Customs stays, nothing changes except the ownership. It is not like all the workers are being replaced with UAE nationals. Before complaining, learn about what you are complaining about.

Are you nuts!!!! Your going to tell me the new owners will not put their own people in control. Do you really think several people will not be replaced by their own people?

Come on man, wake up and smell what your typing.

I hope O'Reilly stomps on this with both feet.

No, he's likely right. The Longshoreman's Union controls everything. This is a tempest in a teapot. That being said, Bush has all the political sense of an ox. What he should do is get Congress involved in some oversight, they can look at the deal and then pontificate about how all of their concerns have been answered, and then sign the deal. Bush is risking way too much political capital on something as petty as this.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:11:07 PM EDT

[#4]

Won't close the borders, allows spending to get out of control, and now wants to give control of our major ports to a terrorist country. I'm ready for a new pres

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:12:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
What worries me is no one is giving any kind of good explanation... I'm very discouraged and pissed right now, and I've been a Bush backer on nearly everything.

WELCOME TO REALITY......bad decisions shrouded in secrecy are the norm for this Administration..........besides.....why not give MORE WEALTHY ARABS some business.......he does it all day long with the Saudis, and they provided 15 out of 19 hijackers on 9/11...........but HEY.....BUSINESS IS BUSINESS, FRIENDS ARE FRIENDS, AND NATIONAL SECURITY IS, WELL, NOT IMPORTANT......

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:14:55 PM EDT

[#6]

WTF? Treason is what this looks like to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!! They are selling us out one day at a time. Globalist suck

I just called my Alabama Rep's in DC and they said the phones were ringing off the hook about this issue.

Call your Reps people. This Pres is out of control!!!!

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:17:04 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Well hell....if "The Government" approves, it must be OK!

Right?

I've been a supporter of this administration right along despite their many many foibles. This BS takes the cake though. I frankly don't give a damn if it really changes nothing. The notion of selling port management to avowed enemies is mind boggling-ly STUPID!

I really must disagree there.
The UAE is not a refuge for terrorists, very friendly with the west, very secular country, etc.
I still do not want managment rights sold to them.
Why?
Because they are not Americans.
I don't trust any other nations when it comes to our ports.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:18:02 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if he would allow the UAE to take control over HIS security detail. 50% of our population lives within 50miles of ports nation wide. This is Defenitly the straw that broke the camels back.Seems to me he must have his hand dipped in the pot to put up a pointless battle like this.

This has nothing to do with security. A British company owns it now and nothing will change if the UAE company gets it. The dock workers stay, the security stays, US Customs stays, nothing changes except the ownership. It is not like all the workers are being replaced with UAE nationals. Before complaining, learn about what you are complaining about.

Even all the management weenies will be the same Brits as they were before. There isn't any impact to Port security with this corporate purchase.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:19:05 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Is Bush fucking crazy????? Why not let them walk a nuke into a large city and stop with all the bullshit.

The muslim countries are in a condition of treason with us. Why the hell should we trust the UAE of all countries?

I don't give a crap about what they feel. All it takes is one POS working at a port to turn his cheek and they have major weapons and other nasty stuff across our border. What better way to hide then in plain sight.

I hope this is bad reporting and they are wrong.

What the hell does that mean?
Dude, pick up a fucking dictionary.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
How can one nation be "in a state of treason" to another nation?

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:20:04 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:

This has nothing to do with security. A British company owns it now and nothing will change if the UAE company gets it. The dock workers stay, the security stays, US Customs stays, nothing changes except the ownership. It is not like all the workers are being replaced with UAE nationals. Before complaining, learn about what you are complaining about.

Are you nuts!!!! Your going to tell me the new owners will not put their own people in control. Do you really think several people will not be replaced by their own people?

Come on man, wake up and smell what your typing.

I hope O'Reilly stomps on this with both feet.

Yes, the new company will NOT put new people in control. That was part of the agreement that allows the purchase to go through. It is a requirement of the corporate purchase that all US staff stay the same.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:21:03 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Much ado about nothing.

Yes, much like his actions to secure and defend our borders.

The security end is being overblown.... yes. However you can't dodge the fact that the UAE was involved in terrorist financing right up until we started getting pretty angry about such matters. Why in the hell do we reward that?

If he honestly can't see how this is different than letting an English firm have the contract I'm stunned.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:23:16 PM EDT

[#12]

Well either that's the slickest ploy to get congress to pass a bill forbidding the sell I ever heard or GW just screwed the biggest political pooch in my lifetime.

Unfortunately I'm betting on the latter.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:24:01 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:26:14 PM EDT

[#14]

I think Bush has Syphilis.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:29:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if he would allow the UAE to take control over HIS security detail. 50% of our population lives within 50miles of ports nation wide. This is Defenitly the straw that broke the camels back.Seems to me he must have his hand dipped in the pot to put up a pointless battle like this.

This has nothing to do with security. A British company owns it now and nothing will change if the UAE company gets it. The dock workers stay, the security stays, US Customs stays, nothing changes except the ownership. It is not like all the workers are being replaced with UAE nationals. Before complaining, learn about what you are complaining about.

What do you mean nothing changes? The UAE will know all our procedures for security and they will know what is moving and when it moves. This is a big mistake if we let them take this over.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:30:07 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Well hell....if "The Government" approves, it must be OK!

Right?

I've been a supporter of this administration right along despite their many many foibles. This BS takes the cake though. I frankly don't give a damn if it really changes nothing. The notion of selling port management to avowed enemies is mind boggling-ly STUPID!

I really must disagree there.
The UAE is not a refuge for terrorists, very friendly with the west, very secular country, etc.
I still do not want managment rights sold to them.
Why?
Because they are not Americans.
I don't trust any other nations when it comes to our ports.

So, 90% of the ports should be shut down because the terminal management companies are foreign?

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:38:16 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I really must disagree there.
The UAE is not a refuge for terrorists, very friendly with the west, very secular country, etc.
I still do not want managment rights sold to them.
Why?
Because they are not Americans.
I don't trust any other nations when it comes to our ports.

The ports in question are currently being run by a British company...

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:39:04 PM EDT

[#18]

This is insane beyond the security issues (if any).

1. These are VITAL NATIONAL ASSETS. There can't be ANY thought of their security being comprimised in any way.

2. The fact that this occured in secret and was sprung on everyone as done deal doesn't sit well.

3. The fact that GWB's stance is causing his base to JOIN IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE MOST MOONBAT DEMOCRATS DEMANDING THE EXACT SAME THING (end the deal) is elevating those same moonbats, giving them a legitimate platform to shout from, rather than the contrived bullshit they've been slinging since the election.

I respect the man and the office but I damn sure think he's DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:39:33 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Much ado about nothing.

+1.

This has nothing to do with port security, no matter how much the hysterical media try to spin it in that direction.

When it comes to port security, these guys and these other guys are in charge.
I ain't saying port security is where it needs to be, but it's pretty clear that this new ownership fracas ain't gonna change the situation in either direction.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:40:10 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Bzzt!
but hey! Just don't go out in public without your burqua and remember to kick uncle Fisal some backsheesh... lest ye become one of his many "wives."

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:44:18 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Bzzt!
but hey! Just don't go out in public without your burqua and remember to kick uncle Fisal some backsheesh... lest ye become one of his many "wives."

Your ignorance is showing.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:50:27 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Bzzt!
but hey! Just don't go out in public without your burqua and remember to kick uncle Fisal some backsheesh... lest ye become one of his many "wives."

www.escapeartist.com/efam/58/bellydancer.gif
Your ignorance is showing.

Frend, you could not pay me enough to live in that pile of crap.

You wanna sell the Saddam "middle-eastern pimp" lifestyle? You need to find someone who didn't go to school with people that begged their families to stay here.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:51:03 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Hey, nice try making Dubai look like paradise.

It's paradise paid BY OUR FUCKING MONEY!

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:52:25 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Think carefully --- Chucky-boy Schumer is against this takeover.
Since when have his ideals and motives coincided with those of ARFCOM members?

I have thought about that also. John Corzine, asshole liberal Gov of New JerKoffsey, has filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the ports in his state from being transfered.

Until now, neither of these shit-for-brains democrats have acknowledged that terrorism even exhists except for G.W. Bush. All of the sudden both of these commies along with Hitlery are going hawkish against a possible American Enemy? Something here doesn't add up.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:54:19 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

This has nothing to do with security. A British company owns it now and nothing will change if the UAE company gets it. The dock workers stay, the security stays, US Customs stays, nothing changes except the ownership. It is not like all the workers are being replaced with UAE nationals. Before complaining, learn about what you are complaining about.

Are you nuts!!!! Your going to tell me the new owners will not put their own people in control. Do you really think several people will not be replaced by their own people?

Come on man, wake up and smell what your typing.

I hope O'Reilly stomps on this with both feet.

Yes, the new company will NOT put new people in control. That was part of the agreement that allows the purchase to go through. It is a requirement of the corporate purchase that all US staff stay the same.

What do you mean no new people in control? Are you trying to say the new company won't send over their own staff to manange and supervise the operations, to do the accounting, to make sure things are working? How exactly will the port operate if the new company doesn't have any staff there? The fact is the new company would have to send over a lot of new people, maybe not to handle the cargo, but to run the business. These people would have to have high level clearance and have access to the entire port. All it would take is one person with high level clearance to take one package off one container and use his clearance to leave the property. Just look at the UN to see how easy it is to pay off someone with high level clearance.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:54:58 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Hey, nice try making Dubai look like paradise.

It's paradise paid BY OUR FUCKING MONEY!

All that glitters is not gold.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:09:17 PM EDT

[#27]

The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:10:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
yet again another stupid decision if true. it's gonna be damned hard to vote this next election. i can't vote for a dem, and i am sick of holding my nose and voteing for idiots that make decisions like this routinely.

Big +1

Yup,great.......

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:13:32 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:15:46 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:19:31 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Right after we get around the fact that the chief executive obviously has someone else in mind for the job (You might note that this is not an open contract nor is there any kind of bidding involved)

(DOH! there goes the leet post)

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:19:46 PM EDT

[#32]

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

I haven't seen anyone really explain what is wrong with this statement. He's trying to demonstrate equality.. it's something we went to war for. It may make us uneasy but what is wrong with it exactly? I'm having a hard time answering that question myself.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:22:53 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Drudge:
He [Bush]said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'

Gee let’s see George…

Dubai is a fundamentalist Muslim shithole with a hereditary monarchy distributing oil revenue to family and cronies based on being a citizen. To become a citizen you must be a member of the royal family. I.E. A fundamentalist Muslim shitbag.

The place has indentured servants from all over Asia and South America (Yes indentured servants… like slaves) Members of the Royal Family are known to fund Muslim Imams that are openly hostile to U.S. interests. On top of that, their economic system is best described as hereditary socialism.

I very much doubt that the same can be said about the British company.

You wanna call that Racism? We need a new executive if that is the case.

www.edwebproject.org/oman-dubai/pics/dubai.airport.jpg
www.dubai-hotels-in-dubai.com/images/image-beach-hotel.jpg
www.bilder.dubai-city.de/big/image091.jpg

Looks a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live.

Hey, nice try making Dubai look like paradise.

It's paradise paid BY OUR FUCKING MONEY!

Don't like it?
Stop driving.

There is ceratinly a lot of jealousy in this thread.
Pissed off that someone besides the US is making it in the World?

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:26:20 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Don't like it?
Stop driving.
There is ceratinly a lot of jealousy in this thread.
Pissed off that someone besides the US is making it in the World?

No I'm pissed off that GW is giving money to a country that supports Islamic terrorism so they can control and provide security to our ports.

I live in Miami, I dont want no bullshit arab country controlling the port.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:28:17 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Right after we get around the fact that the chief executive obviously has someone else in mind for the job (You might note that this is not an open contract nor is there any kind of bidding involved)

(DOH! there goes the leet post)

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:29:49 PM EDT

[#36]

Better switch your radiation detectors on.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:30:04 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Right after we get around the fact that the chief executive obviously has someone else in mind for the job (You might note that this is not an open contract nor is there any kind of bidding involved)

(DOH! there goes the leet post)

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

General Dynamics

LMCO

IBM

I could go on...

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:34:57 PM EDT

[#38]

So conservative president Bush agrees with the world's #1 America hater, Smilin' Jimma Cartier. And some people think Bush the conservative won't sign an AWB. All he needs is a good emotional excuse. God help this once great country!

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:42:37 PM EDT

[#39]

After a while, we'll get used to it. When was the last time anybody heard any bitching about the Panama Canal? Aren't the Chinese managing the canal nowadays?
Remember, the frog never even notices the water getting warmer.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:43:58 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Right after we get around the fact that the chief executive obviously has someone else in mind for the job (You might note that this is not an open contract nor is there any kind of bidding involved)

(DOH! there goes the leet post)

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

General Dynamics

LMCO

IBM

I could go on...

Haliburton.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:45:53 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

General Dynamics

LMCO

IBM

I could go on...

Quote:……IBM Completes Sale Of PC Business To Lenovo

IBM and Lenovo made minor modifications to the terms of the sale to win U.S. government approval.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek

May 2, 2005 09:56 AM
Lenovo Group said Sunday that it has completed its $1.25 billion acquisition of IBM's personal computing division, making the Chinese vendor the world's third largest PC maker behind Dell and Hewlett-Packard. The planned sale was initially unveiled in December.

In a statement, Lenovo chairman Yuanqing Yang said the deal "marks a new era for the global PC industry" and promised to deliver "high-quality products and world-class service." Bolstered by IBM's customer base, Lenovo, going forward, expects to post annual revenue of about $13 billion.

Former IBM PC head Stephen Ward, who becomes CEO of Lenovo, said the company's ongoing alliance with IBM gives it a "powerful competitive position in global markets." He added that Lenovo would introduce a range of new products to Western markets "within weeks."

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100445

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:52:17 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

General Dynamics

LMCO

IBM

I could go on...

Quote:……IBM Completes Sale Of PC Business To Lenovo

IBM and Lenovo made minor modifications to the terms of the sale to win U.S. government approval.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek

May 2, 2005 09:56 AM
Lenovo Group said Sunday that it has completed its $1.25 billion acquisition of IBM's personal computing division, making the Chinese vendor the world's third largest PC maker behind Dell and Hewlett-Packard. The planned sale was initially unveiled in December.

In a statement, Lenovo chairman Yuanqing Yang said the deal "marks a new era for the global PC industry" and promised to deliver "high-quality products and world-class service." Bolstered by IBM's customer base, Lenovo, going forward, expects to post annual revenue of about $13 billion.

Former IBM PC head Stephen Ward, who becomes CEO of Lenovo, said the company's ongoing alliance with IBM gives it a "powerful competitive position in global markets." He added that Lenovo would introduce a range of new products to Western markets "within weeks."

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100445

Yes IBM sold a largly unprofitable BU to china… one might also note that lenovo was already making their laptops and had been for some time.

Does not change the fact that they are one of the largest engineering consulting and project management firms in the U.S. and more than capable of managing the ports.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:37:42 PM EDT

[#43]

God but this is fucked up. I am over in the middle fucking east to protect this country and he tries this shit.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:49:55 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't like it?
Stop driving.
There is ceratinly a lot of jealousy in this thread.
Pissed off that someone besides the US is making it in the World?

No I'm pissed off that GW is giving money to a country that supports Islamic terrorism so they can control and provide security to our ports.

I live in Miami, I dont want no bullshit arab country controlling the port.

Dumbest post award.
1) The Dubai Ports World company is buying out the UK company that currently provides
runs some terminals at thse ports.
2) The US government isn't giving any contracts to anyone on this.
3) Since its a port issue, the US government can approve or deny the purchase. There isn't a reason to deny it.
4) The company will only be running terminal services ie, loading and unloading freighters.
5) The port will still be owned and run by the local Port Authority.
6) Security will still be run by the Port Authority and the Coast Guard, with Customs still doing their work.
7) The entire current management and employees (it Brits and Americans) will be the same. That is a requirement of the company purchase.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:50:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
God but this is fucked up. I am over in the middle fucking east to protect this country and he tries this shit.

Whats fucked up about it?

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:54:12 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

Ok, so let them form a company and bid on the contract.

Right after we get around the fact that the chief executive obviously has someone else in mind for the job (You might note that this is not an open contract nor is there any kind of bidding involved)

(DOH! there goes the leet post)

Fine, then name the American company that can handle the job.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it sucks that there isn't an American company doing this. But that's the way it is.

General Dynamics

LMCO

IBM

I could go on...

Haliburton.

None of which have any experience running terminals, and aren't in that business now. And you want them running terminal services?

What contract are you talking about, this is a corporate purchase, Dubai Ports World is buying that UK company.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:55:37 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is, there are no American companies that do this sort of thing. There were four companies in the world large enough to handle this kind of operation; one in England, one in the U.A.E, one in Hong Kong and one in Singapore. The British company that has been managing the ports up till now is apparently being bought by the company from the U.A.E. So if not them, then who?

I just love to listen to stuff like this.

What, we have a shortage of management types with port know-how?-No.

So where is the logic behind the statement?-There isn’t any.

The management types with the port know-how already work for companies like COSCO, MAERSK, HANJINN, and this Dubai company.

Posted: 2/21/2006 4:02:13 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
yet again another stupid decision if true. it's gonna be damned hard to vote this next election. i can't vote for a dem, and i am sick of holding my nose and voteing for idiots that make decisions like this routinely.

I totally agree..I fully supported President Bush from day one, but his total lack of support for defending our borders and this insane ideal that a company that is now owned by the same type of people that funnel money to terror groups and support the radical Islamists, can secure our ports, has me casting a doubting eye at him and his thought process.

Even if there is no American companys that do this, find another company from a "Western" country or create a Division of the Transportaion department to do it..something, anything, but them.