Posted on 02/21/2006 11:14:32 AM PST by Wuli
As Rush just noted, one of the large global seaport opertions companies is Mersk (18% of world market), from Denmark.
So, let's give our port contracts to the Danish, and stick it to the Mullahs over the cartoons at the same time.
I thought he said it was a Dutch company.
I would rather see them in American hands. However I must admit that I do like that Idea.
I for it but, it'll never happen.
If the Republican admin moves to block this Arab control the Dims and MSM will scream that we are agsinst the polivies we always preach for namely free enterprise and fair market, they will totally discount our #1 priority, National Security and try to use it against us with the uninformed public and they will more than likely win.
The Mafia did a pretty good job of operating the ports during WW2 , but I really dont see whay Americans cant manage our own ports, Second choice is the Danes, way out ahead of the Ayrabs.
give it to Halliburton.
Its a division of the AP Moller-Maersk group, whose origins are from Denmark
http://www.maersk.com/about_company_full_history.asp?nav=1&subnav=12
we can, but unions cost money.
Not a bad idea. Why would we give such a sensitive job to an Arab nation? What were the Bushies thinking?
Maersk is a Danish owned company. They operate terminals on all coasts in the U.S. I actually work for a Stevedore on the Left Coast. I have a pretty solid understanding of what this all means. I am not a big fan of the UAE operating terminals in these ports. They are not buying the ports, they are buying the lease to operate terminals in these ports. Trust MSM to get it wrong. There are terminals on the West Coast that are operated by Mainland China companies.
We do operate and own our ports. Actually, lots of companies, domestic and foreign, operate and own terminals in our ports. And some are run by regional and local governments. And some of those are operated under lease to U.S. companies.
But over the years those companies were bought out by bigger companies, who all happen to end up in other countries, no doubt because of policies instituted by democrats which make everything cheaper and safer for investors if the companies are based outside of the Democrat's greedy reach.
Those same U.S. companies still run the ports, they just send their profits to foreign companies.
This is an issue for many businesses, not just the ports. My company has been sold several times, I was IBM and then Loral before my current employer. And at our site, there is also a commercial venture Micron which used to be IBM and was then IBM/Toshiba before it was sold to Micron. And British Aerospace (BAE), a FOREIGN company, owns part of the facility here now as well, but the employees are still the same guys I played soccer with years ago, and I trust them still as americans even though they are owned by another country's business.
Americans ARE managing our own ports, it's just in a free-market economy all businesses are up for sale and these businesses were bought.
I have no complaint, but they (Halliburton) did not (but could have) bid on the sale when the British offered it.
Besides, Halliburton does alot and has many divisions, but I don't think that major seaport operations is one of its primary businesses - "logistics" management in general, yes, but not actual seaport operations management. It's not that they couldn't but simply that they don't, at leat not according to their website:
http://www.halliburton.com/about/index.jsp
http://www.halliburton.com/kbr/ourServices.jsp
"What were the Bushies thinking?"
Like the Miers nomination, they weren't - "thinking".
You are right in a lot of ways. Maybe it's more symbolic that people are pissed that an Arab company be given this job. I really don't know any particulars about Dubai. Many of the Gulf States have made some progressive moves. It seems that the emirates are far more interested in capitalism than spreading the Wahhabi doctrine like the Saudis. How far should American caution go before it crosses over into paranoia? By denying contracts to nations such as Dubai, would we further alienate them which in turn would drive them toward radicalism. Somehow I really think this is really a dollars and cents deal that no one is talking about. Dubai will do the job for less money.
"Why would we give such a sensitive job to an Arab nation? What were the Bushies thinking?"
It is the same idiocy that says Islam is a religion of peace, that Saudi Arabia is our friend, and that you must strip seach white old grannies at the airport so that no one's widdle feewings get hurt.
In short, it is the politically correct foolishness that will get many more of us killed.
Problem is, DB World already controls many of the ports where cargo is loaded on to containers.
What's the difference?
The immediate uproar is, as you see, emotional.
But this emotional reaction stems from two facts - (1)most people were simply unaware, to begin with, that so much of our seaport operations were run by foreign-owned companies; its a revelation to most people and (2)post 9/11, the idea that those operations will pass to a company owned by the government of Dubai leaves many wondering - why?, is that what we should want to have happen?
That said, and again post 9/11, it is not emotional or irrational to ask the basic question: "should we have such strategic assets operated by foreign interests" and our seaports, commercial or otherwise, surely are strategic assets (the largest % of stuff we send to our troops in Iraq, leaves from the seaports in the Gulf of Mexico, whose operations contracts are part of the sale to Dubai).
The difference is that we should now (should have already) be doing/been doing more inspection of containers arriving at our ports here.
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.