Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 258
  1. #101  
    How/why would it be easier for the Brits? I and probably will bet you have no idea on the security innards of either of these companies. I don't think it will make a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    You may be right on the UAE (and Dubai)...but you still havent answered the question. Do you think it would be easier or harder for a terrorist associated with Bin Laden to infiltrate and cause destruction with Dubai running the ports versus the Brits?

    If you say that it wouldn't matter, then I disagree. If you say that it might be easier (even a little) with Dubai running the ports, then I think the issue is relevant considering that much of our resources are now concerned with the war on terrorism.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    How/why would it be easier for the Brits?
    Where did I say it would be easier for a terrorist to infiltrate the port organization if it was run by the Brits...Im actually arguing that it would be easier if it was run by Dubai.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I and probably will bet you have no idea on the security innards of either of these companies. I don't think it will make a difference.
    I don't claim to but you when you make statements like this and provide no basis on your knowledge either...should I dismiss it out of hand as well?
    Last edited by t2gungho; 02/25/2006 at 10:01 PM.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I and probably will bet you have no idea on the security innards of either of these companies. I don't think it will make a difference.
    I beg to differ that it won't make a difference if Dubai runs the ports:

    link
    Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, issued a statement saying: “Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract.” But at the same time an official at the Department of Homeland Security contradicted Rumsfeld by listing a series of changes on security, implying that additional “safeguards” are required precisely because the acquirer is owned by an Arab state. This is not unreasonable, given that Dubai Ports World, being government-owned, has no obligation of transparency to shareholders, as did P&O, and might some day come under pressure from terrorists to co-operate lest Dubai’s immunity from terrorist attack end.
    From this information, it seems painfully clear that it will make SOME difference if Dubai runs the ports and the Dept. of Homeland Security thinks so as well.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  4. #104  
    I don't think it will make a difference whether Brits or UAE are running it.

    Where is the evidence that Brits would be a safer bet?

    I agree on both of our knowledge. Let me know if you work at the ports or the British or UAE compnay and have some inside knowledge. I'm assuming you don't, therefore how the heck do we really know if one is better than the other. I digress, security isn't handle by either.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Where did I say it would be easier for a terrorist to infiltrate the port organization if it was run by the Brits...Im actually arguing that it would be easier if it was run by Dubai.

    I don't claim to but you make statements like this provide no basis on your knowledge either...should I dismiss it out of hand as well?
  5. #105  
    Good, one more security hurdle that UAE will have to abide by that the brits didn't. Sounds like it will be safer.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I beg to differ that it won't make a difference if Dubai runs the ports:

    link
    From this information, it seems painfully clear that it will make SOME difference if Dubai runs the ports and the Dept. of Homeland Security thinks so as well.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I don't think it will make a difference whether Brits or UAE are running it.

    Where is the evidence that Brits would be a safer bet?

    I agree on both of our knowledge. Let me know if you work at the ports or the British or UAE compnay and have some inside knowledge. I'm assuming you don't, therefore how the heck do we really know if one is better than the other. I digress, security isn't handle by either.
    See above...I don't need to work at the ports to see that the Dept. of Homeland Security has decided to implement different procedures if/when Dubai is controlling the ports.

    This issue of security not being handled by either isnt really relevant if we are willing to make changes to our security depending on who runs the port? The issue isnt that Dubai is running security but rather if there are increased risks...judging from Homeland Security, there are.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Good, one more security hurdle that UAE will have to abide by that the brits didn't. Sounds like it will be safer.
    Safer? How did you come to that conclusion? Isn't it just as plausible that the risk the Brits provided was MUCH lower than the Dubai company and therefore if the risk that Dubai presents is much greater, even though we have newer procedures, we could still be worse off?

    Your assumption is that the risk the Brits presented was/is the same that Dubai presents...if that were true, why make changes at all by Homeland Security? (i.e. they would only make changes if they thought the risk changed.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #108  
    Depending what the additional 'safeguards' are (your quote didn't state what they were), it may make it safer. Changes were requested b/c like they said they needed to be tranparent. Publicly traded companies are required to have disclosure.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Safer? How did you come to that conclusion? Isn't it just as plausible that the risk the Brits provided was MUCH lower than the Dubai company and therefore if the risk that Dubai presents is much greater, even though we have newer procedures, we could still be worse off?

    Your assumption is that the risk the Brits presented was/is the same that Dubai presents...if that were true, why make changes at all by Homeland Security? (i.e. they would only make changes if they thought the risk changed.)
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Depending what the additional 'safeguards' are (your quote didn't state what they were), it may make it safer. Changes were requested b/c like they said they needed to be tranparent. Publicly traded companies are required to have disclosure.
    First off, I doubt they will come out and say what the safeguards would be. Second, I agree it may make it safer (and certainly is better than not doing anything) but you still didn't acknowledge my point...i.e. changes were made because Homeland Security sees a risk (or at a minimum a different risk) with Dubai running the show (regardless of what Secretary Rumsfield says).
    Last edited by t2gungho; 02/25/2006 at 11:08 PM.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #110  
    you know, I'm a conservative, and I tend to support republicans in general.

    but this is incredible. how is it that republicans are defending this? for a party that has made protection of national security their chief campaign point, handing over our ports just seems to defy all common sense! what the h*ll are we doing here?

    it's surprising - those who i'd have thought would have been among the first to speak out against this type of transaction are among its biggest proponents!

    bizarre.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  11. Dim-Ize's Avatar
    Posts
    242 Posts
    Global Posts
    710 Global Posts
    #111  
    Regardless of the financial gain, I think it is ridiculous to consider selling any of our realestate or ports to any foreign government - friend or foe.

    Once it is gone - it's gone.

    Would you sell your driveway entrance to your neighbor for a few grand?

    The whole thing is so pathetic.
  12. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #112  
    I agree 100%. that's a fine analogy. I have tried to look at this from different perspectives, but ultimately I always return to the same conclusion. it just doesn't make sense.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  13. #113  
    I am afraid that W will drag just enough members of the party kicking and screaming, to make sure it passes. Just another thing that he will dig his heels regardless of what the people want or need. Take care, jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize
    Regardless of the financial gain, I think it is ridiculous to consider selling any of our realestate or ports to any foreign government - friend or foe.

    Once it is gone - it's gone.

    Would you sell your driveway entrance to your neighbor for a few grand?

    The whole thing is so pathetic.
    First, the ports were already run by a foreign company. Second, we aren't selling the realestate. DPW will be taking over the company that operates the ports. Most likely, nothing will change on the ground. Most of the low level staff is union and will likely not be touched. I think the biggest change will the the name on the paycheck.

    That said, I'd still rather a US company run the port operations.
  15. #115  
    I've been out and I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this press release from DHS:

    Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports

    ...

    Who Secures The Ports:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): CBP’s mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States by eliminating potential threats before they arrive at our borders and ports.

    CBP uses intelligence and a risk-based strategy to screen information on 100% of cargo before it is loaded onto vessels destined for the United States. All cargo that is identified as high risk is inspected, either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S.

    Coast Guard: The Coast Guard routinely inspects and assesses the security of U.S. ports in accordance with the Maritime Transportation and Security Act and the Ports and Waterways Security Act. Every regulated U.S. port facility is required to establish and implement a comprehensive security plan that outlines procedures for controlling access to the facility, verifying credentials of port workers, inspecting cargo for tampering, designating security responsibilities, training, and reporting of all breaches of security or suspicious activity, among other security measures. Working closely with local port authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard regularly reviews, approves, assesses and inspects these plans and facilities to ensure compliance.

    Terminal Operator: Whether a person or a corporation, the terminal operator is responsible for operating its particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator is responsible for the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. The cranes they use may be their own, or they may lease them from the port authority.

    Port Authority: An entity of a local, state or national government that owns, manages and maintains the physical infrastructure of a port (seaport, airport or bus terminal) to include wharf, docks, piers, transit sheds, loading equipment and warehouses.

    Ports often provide additional security for their facilities.

    The role of the Port Authority is to facilitate and expand the movement of cargo through the port, provide facilities and services that are competitive, safe and commercially viable. The Port manages marine navigation and safety issues within port boundaries and develops marine-related businesses on the lands that it owns or manages.

    ...

    UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition

    DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.


    The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction.
    This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.
    DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
    o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
    o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
    o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
    o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
    o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
    o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
    o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
    *Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.

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

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

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

    ...
    http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5437

    (emphasis mine)
  16. #116  
    I thought this was interesting and had a good point:

    http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2006/02...ils-dubya.html

    I know many dont put much stock in blogs, but I liked his opinion. Since 9/11 the gov't has been on a fear campaign about all the terrorists that go bump in the night, and so when this comes around people are reacting from all the fear used to push the gov't agenda for the past few years. I don't know if this is a wise decision or not, I just find it ironic how we are being asked to trust what we were told to fear the past few years.
    The value of knowledge is not in its possession, but in its use.
  17. #117  
    Okay, anyone who truely wants to understand the reasoning behind this deal (beyond the simplistic xenophobic and Islamaphobic statements here) should and must read this article on Dubia and it rapid accent in the Middle East:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...ticle_continue

    They want more, and that desire for global control is what lies behind their bidding war for P&O, the British ports and shipping combine, which has a powerful European presence (including the giant London Gateway, planned to be Britain's biggest container port at Thurrock on the Thames), exactly what Dubai wants. Singapore wanted it too and the two commercial city states' rival bids drove up the price, adding 80% to the value of P&O's shares and valuing the company at a reported $6.8bn (just short of £4bn), an unprecedented 40 times P&O's profits last year. At the weekend, Singapore pulled out and all the signs are that when P&O's shareholders vote today, they will accept Dubai's offer. This bid alone is a measure of the hunger, the money and the drive of what is happening in the emirate. And the Arab world has backed the bid. When Dubai Ports issued a bond for $2.8bn last month to help it buy P&O, it found itself drowning in $11.4bn of subscriptions.

    <snip>

    But Mustafa's reply came from another place entirely, evidence of the extraordinary hybridisation of cultures that is going on here: traditionalist, modernist, Arabist, internationalist, market-based, bowing to authority. For Mustafa, it all stems from the Emir of Dubai himself, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. Mohammed only became Emir on January 4, when his elder brother Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid al-Maktoum, died after a long illness. But Mohammed has had his hand on the tiller for years. "Sheikh Mohammed has had a vision," Mustafa said, "which is that Dubai should become a fully developed city, with the best life of any city that has ever been created. The whole city is growing as a single organism. We have planned this, very carefully, he is a leader who has bestowed a great vision on us, so that in time Dubai is going to become the first ever Arab modern metropolis." Was this really about an Arabist dream of perfection? "No, this is not Arab nationalism. But what Dubai is trying to do is set an example of how Arabs should be represented. After 9/11, Arabs suffered from a lot of bad publicity. Dubai is trying to come back with the right kind of publicity. It will be a fully modern state. It will be setting the standards. It will be a place that people will look up to."

    <snip>

    This is the Dubai sandwich: at the bottom, cheap and exploited Asian labour; in the middle, white northern professional services, plus tourist hunger for glamour in the sun and, increasingly, a de-monopolised western market system; at the top, enormous quantities of invested oil money, combined with fearsome social and political control and a drive to establish another model of what modern Arabia might mean in the post-9/11 world.
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    Okay, anyone who truely wants to understand the reasoning behind this deal (beyond the simplistic xenophobic and Islamaphobic statements here) should and must read this article on Dubia and it rapid accent in the Middle East:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...ticle_continue
    Good article Funk. Unfortunately, most will pass over it, in favor of their "The Arabs are comin', the Arabs are comin'..." paranoia.

    They're a business. Blowing up a port, or smuggling in suitcase nukes isn't good for business.

    But, whatever. All I want to know is should this deal become finalized, which one of you guys will be manning the church steeple? One if by land, two if by sea...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Good article Funk. Unfortunately, most will pass over it, in favor of their "The Arabs are comin', the Arabs are comin'..." paranoia.

    They're a business. Blowing up a port, or smuggling in suitcase nukes isn't good for business.

    But, whatever. All I want to know is should this deal become finalized, which one of you guys will be manning the church steeple? One if by land, two if by sea...

    Thanks Munk...However one of the things that really struck me about the aritcle is just how atrocious the native arabs really treat the South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) workers there and just how racsist and undemocratic many of the laws are there. I know many people who've lived their whole lived in Dubia and they still are treated like second class citizens. Factors like these are more important in swaying my opinion regarding the sale of the ports...I just don't like to see such a country no matter how propersous or rich take a foothold in the US when it treats so many of it workers with such disdain and racism. But heck, you could make similar arguements about Communist China and that hasn't stopped us trading with them...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    Thanks Munk...However one of the things that really struck me about the aritcle is just how atrocious the native arabs really treat the South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) workers there and just how racsist and undemocratic many of the laws are there. I know many people who've lived their whole lived in Dubia and they still are treated like second class citizens. Factors like these are more important in swaying my opinion regarding the sale of the ports...I just don't like to see such a country no matter how propersous or rich take a foothold in the US when it treats so many of it workers with such disdain and racism. But heck, you could make similar arguements about Communist China and that hasn't stopped us trading with them...
    That is an important point. I've seen it first hand myself. Indian, Pakistani, Filipino and Bangladeshi workers are treated very poorly, live in horrid conditions and nobody seems to care. Of course they are there voluntarily but that doesn't excuse the treatment. This is part of the "practical hypocrisy" of international relations. But the thought is that it is easier to push social reforms with a country when we have good relations with them than it is when we don't. Saudi Arabia is more likely that Iran, for example, to care what we think about religious freedoms. The problem is when countries like Saudi Arabia turn the tables and start buying up loads of US dollars. We can say all we like about religious tolerance but the bottom line is that we need Saudi investments. The same can be said of China. It seems to me that when we open the door to unchecked foreign investments and trade deficits we lose our position to push human rights issues.
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions