DP World: No Plan to Sell Miami Port Ops

I would rather call them whistle blowers. At least now the public is aware that foreign interest have taken over many of our key resources.

I think the same group that handles the ports should handle Secret Service for protecting the President. :0

He said all of DP World's stuff. The report specifically said they were willing to pay 200 million for it, and then pointed out that the current value was 500 million MORE than that.

It sure sounded like Eller was hoping to get the whole thing cheap. This would happen if Congress forced DP World to sell to a U.S. company, and Eller was the only one willing to offer any money.

It sure sounded like Eller was hoping to get the whole thing cheap. This would happen if Congress forced DP World to sell to a U.S. company, and Eller was the only one willing to offer any money.

Once you alerted me to the Fox news I stayed up late and watched the rerun. They did say 200 million for all the terminals. They would steal a half a billion dollars if DP were forced to sell at that price. However in the articles I read this AM DP says they don't have anything to do with the terminals and referred all inquires to P&O. Their position would seem to be that they can't sell what they don't own. P&O is a subsidiary of DP not a part of DP and P&O leases the terminals not DP. It looks like DP is saying that P&O is a separate company and they have been leasing the terminals and its up to them if they want to continue the operations. Since the ownership of the leases remain the same nothing has changed. The question now is can congress take leases from a company that has done business in the US since the 1600's and is already approved in our port terminals.

wrong Hutchinson Wampoa controls all containers in and out they may not control the government but the containers they do.
Ops4

That is a real point of order. Are you awake.
Ops4 God Bless America!

Thats your take not mine. It is not fear, it is vigilance, after 9-11 I prefer to error on the side of security, not the side of the almighty buck.

Ops4 God Bless America!

But how do you KNOW that blocking the deal "erred on the side of security"?

If there were payments to the officials making the decision, your "side of the almighty buck" might have credence. But since there is not, how do you know that completing the deal would be worse for our security than scuttling the deal?

BTW, think about this. The opponents originally called for terminating the deal. That is what Schumer wanted, it's what Clinton called for, its what opponents here said -- have Bush cancel the deal, don't approve it, make it go away, stop DP World from buying P&O.

OK. I don't think opponents would disagree with that last paragraph, that this is what was called for.

The result of that action, stopping the deal, would have meant that the terminals in question would still be handled by P&O, a foreign company. No congressional legislation would be passed to revoke any OTHER ownership deals (meaning that wasn't part of the original reqeust, just Bush rejecting this deal). We would go back to the status quo before the deal was announced.

Now, here we are 3 weeks later. P&O HAS been bought by DP World. The deal was not stopped.

Instead, DP World has a firm announcement that they are selling the companies that run former P&O operations in the U.S. to a U.S. company, hopefully in the next 6 months or so.

I still don't think opponents can prove this will make us safer, but CERTAINLY the opponents will agree that THIS outcome is MUCH BETTER than the outcome they originally wanted.

By NOT stopping the deal, these terminal operations might be fully in the hands of an american company, whereas by STOPPING the deal they would be in the hands of a foreign company.

But I have not seen a SINGLE opponent of the deal acknowledge that, by allowing the deal to go through, things worked out BETTER, and from their perspective we will be MORE SECURE, than we would have been if they had gotten their way originally.

So to summarise:
1) There is no evidence that rejecting the deal would "err on the side of security", because there was no way for those of us on the outside to really know which owner would make us more secure.
2) Because the deal was completed, we will end up with wholly-american-owned companies running these terminals, rather than the P&O company. Again, there is no evidence this makes us more secure, but it is better from the opponent's perspective than rejecting the deal would have been.

Cash again is not the err, security is you seem to focus on payments. Cash.

You are stuck on the issue of cash.

I am on the issue of security.

Dubai has been in the business of cleaning known terrorist money,and allowing them deep cover.

They have supported Hamas, That is enough for me to say
bye bye, and become a solution thinker outside the money box.

The preservation of a great Nation, is my concern,
Nuff Said.
Ops4 God Bless America!