Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dubai seeks to defend ports takeover
MSNBC, Financial Times(UK) ^ | 2/20/06 | Robert Wright

Posted on 02/20/2006 4:13:19 PM PST by Dane

A team from Dubai's DP World is expected to start meetings on Tuesday with groups which have expressed concerns about its takeover of P&O Ports' US operations as it seeks to head off political opposition to the deal.

The company, owned by the Emirate of Dubai's Ports, Customs and Freezones Authority, is set to meet representatives of some of the five US port authorities where P&O has operations, and national politicians who oppose the deal.

The team is thought to include some of the many US citizens who work for DP World, including Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer, who has been one of the main actors in Dubai's transformation into a major shipping hub.

They hope the meetings will erode support for efforts to reverse the approval already given for the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which approved the takeover in January. The efforts gained momentum last week when Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez introduced legislation which would prevent a company controlled by a foreign government from taking over a US port facility.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: dubai; hillaryclinton; portauthority; ports; shipping; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last
I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.

BTW, I wonder if hillary will try to shake DPWorld down. What am i thinking of course she will, that's her way, IMO.

1 posted on 02/20/2006 4:13:20 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dane
I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.

No, but neither are 100% of the employees American.

2 posted on 02/20/2006 4:18:47 PM PST by King Moonracer (All your exploding-head-deities are belong to us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos. There are Chinese forms capable of doing the job effectively, and in fact at considerable economic advantage (for us, due to cost), however it would not be prudent. Same thing here .....I'm certain there are some economic benefits to this arrangement, and there is the possibility that this firm may do the job every year 'til Kingdom Come without any problems whatsoever (just as there is a chance -LOL- that the Chinese firm would do what it's supposed to do at Los Alamos without any espionage taking place).

However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US.

3 posted on 02/20/2006 4:23:42 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos

Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.

4 posted on 02/20/2006 4:27:54 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Here's a poll you all can FReep....will be interesting to see results of this one.

http://www.olneydailymail.com/


5 posted on 02/20/2006 4:35:02 PM PST by GrannyK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrannyK
I'll pass simply because the answers are clearly a joke. In a more serious poll I would gladly participate. If approved there would be Arabs up to no good, no doubt about it.
6 posted on 02/20/2006 4:47:47 PM PST by Racer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.

Very few seem to know or even care about this fact.

7 posted on 02/20/2006 4:48:02 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes
Very few seem to know or even care about this fact.

I know, it almost like some put their hands up to their ears and scream "lalalalalalalalalalala, I don't hear you".

8 posted on 02/20/2006 4:50:26 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked.

There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution.

9 posted on 02/20/2006 4:51:33 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The media sure is not helping.


10 posted on 02/20/2006 4:53:09 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane

And all those folks will keep their jobs, and they don't have to worry about any orders that might let something slide by, because, obviously, even though the company is run by an Arab government, the American employees will be running everything... //sarcasm


11 posted on 02/20/2006 4:55:59 PM PST by ER Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: speekinout
There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong. Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution

But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.

12 posted on 02/20/2006 5:00:08 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
"However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US."

I believe the times in which we live demand that no foreign nation be given charge over any point of entry and that any person employed within the area of that port be thoroughly screened by American security officials. I know that's asking a lot, but how much are you willing to do in order to stop something very very lethal from entering through these ports?

I don't limit my objections to muzzie nations. Although they would be at the top of the banned list.

I have no illusions about the sincerity any of the Democrats complaining about this. If Bush wasn't behind it they would support it in the name of tolerance.

13 posted on 02/20/2006 5:02:41 PM PST by isrul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The company may be ok, but ya can't trust the Arabs working in it. 99.9% muslim = at least 10% sympathetic to terror groups.


14 posted on 02/20/2006 5:03:00 PM PST by observer5 ("Better violate the rights of a few, than of all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
This issue is a "perception" problem, Dane.

And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.

sw

15 posted on 02/20/2006 5:04:07 PM PST by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spectre

and they are killing us with it. tis story is even making the news blurb at the top of the hour on music radio stations.


16 posted on 02/20/2006 5:06:17 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spectre
And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.


At least now the Democrats are on record supporting profiling. Can we start searching Mohammed more than granny at the airport?
17 posted on 02/20/2006 5:07:47 PM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?


18 posted on 02/20/2006 5:09:54 PM PST by villagerjoel (US of A!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dane
But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.

LOL.

19 posted on 02/20/2006 5:19:13 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: villagerjoel
So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?

The Brits have had those contracts for years. Most ports are owned by local Port Authorities. The Port Authority has a lot of varied work (some of them are also responsible for airports). The largest ports have a lot of the routine work contracted out, and container transfer is just one of those things.

I don't know why no American co. has ever gone into that business, but the truth is that none did. Internationally, there seems to be only 3 cos. left who do it - this one, based in Dubai, and one each in Singapore and Hong Kong.

20 posted on 02/20/2006 5:26:09 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Another great idea from the unelected chasims of Washington DC!!

They must think Americans are really stooopid!!!
Open the ports to Al Queda and the borders to whoever.
Totally senseless! Idiotic! Blundering crazy! And exactly what do the Bozo"s plan on doing with all that money???

We need to make Omaha our new Capital and tell Washington DC to go get F^@#%$#&%$*^d.
Washington DC no longer represents true American values and tradition.


21 posted on 02/20/2006 5:32:17 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

"Internationally, there seems to be only 3 cos. left who do it - this one, based in Dubai"

The acquisition of P & O is not yet a done deal.


22 posted on 02/20/2006 5:37:09 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

Who says there aren't any American companies who can run the ports? Who's running them now??Did they ask anyone? Or was it a no bid transaction? There are too many questions and some pretty ugly revelations about the UAR and how they have supported terrorists in the past. We have to assume they continue to do so, no matter what a photo op shows.

Just because an obscure report from an obscure government spokesperson favors or supports something does not validate the truth.
Americans would not be prudent to place any trust in this transaction, no matter how or who guarantees it to be ok.


23 posted on 02/20/2006 5:40:35 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The acquisition of P & O is not yet a done deal.

It will be on March 2nd, when a British court approves the deal.

24 posted on 02/20/2006 5:43:37 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"It will be on March 2nd, when a British court approves the deal."

Ah, yes ... the old "aura of inevitability" thing. Who else uses this tactic?


25 posted on 02/20/2006 5:44:29 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
Who says there aren't any American companies who can run the ports? Who's running them now??Did they ask anyone?

Name one Mr. know it all about shipping.

26 posted on 02/20/2006 5:44:50 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Ah, yes ... the old "aura of inevitability" thing. Who else uses this tactic?

I'm just telling you a fact. A British court has assigned March 2nd as the date to approve the deal.

27 posted on 02/20/2006 5:46:14 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"A British court has assigned March 2nd as the date to approve the deal."

Which means it has not yet been approved. A lot can happen between now and March 2.


28 posted on 02/20/2006 5:48:00 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
You don't know the worst of it.

Dubai Ports has already bought the CSX Railroad Co.

If they get hold of this port, they could bring in a 100 shipping container nukes, load them on the railroad, and park them up and down the east coast. Then set 'em off, all at once.

29 posted on 02/20/2006 5:48:00 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dane

I asked the question. You tell me.


30 posted on 02/20/2006 5:53:12 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: isrul
"I believe the times in which we live demand that no foreign nation be given charge over any point of entry and that any person employed within the area of that port be thoroughly screened by American security officials. I know that's asking a lot, but how much are you willing to do in order to stop something very very lethal from entering through these ports?"

Then you're too late because this deal isn't between a US Company and the UAE it's between a British Company and the UAE because the British company is the one who runs them now !

31 posted on 02/20/2006 5:56:38 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The acquisition of P & O is not yet a done deal.

It's all but done. The British gov't and the stockholders all approve. The US can't do anything about it.

32 posted on 02/20/2006 5:58:59 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: observer5; Dane
Exactly, you have hit the nail right on the head. These are the people who want to wage jihad because of a bunch of cartoons in an independent newspaper. These countries are ready to break of diplomatic relations and apply sanctions because of cartoons.

This is not about foreign ownership, this is more about the type of people who are going to be in charge. I am sort of skeptical when the administration says "trust us". After 911 and the cartoon riots, I am not about to trust any of these guys.

33 posted on 02/20/2006 6:01:58 PM PST by Moorings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

"The US can't do anything about it."

Those leases were with P & O. The deal is clearly contingent upon approval of the security apparatus of the US government, as well as the various states involved. I do wonder what the board of P & O is thinking along about now, since this firestorm has erupted. I'd imagine they're toting up the potential costs associated with losing six lucrative port contracts, myself. This would certainly change the calculus on any sale.


34 posted on 02/20/2006 6:06:24 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44

Americans would not be prudent to make a fuss about something they know nothing about, but that never stopped many.

The Brits have been handling the container traffic at these ports (and that's all this is about. It's not "running the ports", "port security", or any of the other buzz phrases that scare you) for years.

A little education wouldn't hurt you. It might even make you a little less anxious. Try it.


35 posted on 02/20/2006 6:06:46 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I do wonder what the board of P & O is thinking along about now, since this firestorm has erupted. I'd imagine they're toting up the potential costs associated with losing six lucrative port contracts, myself. This would certainly change the calculus on any sal

Actually the P&O board is losing nothing. DPWorld is now contracted to buy them out.

36 posted on 02/20/2006 6:10:23 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"DPWorld is now contracted to buy them out."

Pending, Dane ... pending. Not closed.


37 posted on 02/20/2006 6:11:26 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"the many U.S. citizens who work for DP World." Please see: (1) various associated articles on dhimmitude, and (2) various definitions of the initials DP.


38 posted on 02/20/2006 6:11:26 PM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

"There aren't any American companies that can run these ports"
So who HAS been running the ports for the past umpteen years then?


39 posted on 02/20/2006 6:16:04 PM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I'd imagine they're toting up the potential costs associated with losing six lucrative port contracts, myself.

I think it's clear that they are. That's why representatives of the Dubai co. are coming here. I don't know that loss of these ports would kill the deal - there's no problem in other countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, etc. But it sure would make a difference on sale price, and that might kill it.
But still, the decision will be made on economic grounds, and US politics won't have a lot to do with it, except indirectly.

And, BTW, the Coast Guard, who are responsible for the security, don't seem to think it's a problem. It's pure politics.

40 posted on 02/20/2006 6:18:08 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moorings
Exactly. And you DO speak for the average American.

Perception and conditioning are the two main problems with this.

sw

41 posted on 02/20/2006 6:20:15 PM PST by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The anal exam of this company will be soooooooo disturbing and painful that the "deal" will never happen.

TT


42 posted on 02/20/2006 6:22:42 PM PST by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
So who HAS been running the ports for the past umpteen years then?

The Brits.

43 posted on 02/20/2006 6:25:53 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

CSX is a publicly-traded US company..it has no foreign ownership


44 posted on 02/20/2006 7:24:40 PM PST by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

Guess I could research it myself, but just in case you know---who ran the ports before the Brits?


45 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:18 PM PST by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Even if it's 100% innocent now, it's just has potential for some really bad things in the future. Bush better back away from this...now.


46 posted on 02/20/2006 7:34:05 PM PST by Hildy (The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

indeed.

if this goes through, and there is even a minor incident at one of these ports regarding "terror related" cargo, even if its just a suspicion, there will be political hell to pay.


47 posted on 02/20/2006 7:36:11 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

"The Brits have been handling the container traffic at these ports (and that's all this is about. It's not "running the ports", "port security", or any of the other buzz phrases that scare you) for years."

And it stinks. This is an opportunity to change things.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9629/


48 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:17 PM PST by dervish ("And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Even if it's 100% innocent now, it's just has potential for some really bad things in the future. Bush better back away from this...now

Well the only two firms that will can make a credible bid are a Singapore firm or a Hong Kong(chicomm) firm and you know hillary will push for the chicomms and the press will be silent if that were to happen.

Be careful with your wishes they may come true.

49 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:38 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
who ran the ports before the Brits?

We really should be clearer about terminology. All ports are "run" by a local Port Authority. (Security is separate - it's the responsibility of the Coast Guard).
Some ports are small enough so that the Port Authority can manage all operations. The larger ports subcontract some operations - both for efficiency and cost.

Each Port Authority decided individually when to subcontract container management. There isn't just one Fed'l agency to manage all of the ports, but I think it's DoT that oversees the regs. for port operations. They don't dictate what the Port Authorities can do, they just monitor.

50 posted on 02/20/2006 7:46:53 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson