Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dilloduck said:Follow closely---some people think this job should be done by as American---no American company wants to or can afford to do it. You want the government to subsidize an American company to do the job? If so--which one and how are you going to prove that said company can do any better than one with world wide experience?
archangel said:then please explain to me and countless others all this BS of leave no child behind expressed by your fearless leader et al...are you now saying that all US students graduating from our esteemed universities will not be productive citizens in the "New World Order" They do not have the skills to run a port of entry or any other enterprise on the future table...this is pure and simple propoganda and I for one am sickened by it!
dilloduck said:No---I am saying what I clearly said above regarding the port nonsense. Don't try to make this something that it isn't. Hillary has already done that.
archangel said:you are the one trying to make something out of nothing...you said US companies will not or cannot afford to take over the ports without being subsidized by the US government...not I...this is a slap in the face to US companies and our students attending the same US universites as the ME users! :spank3:
I can speak from real-time experience, Arch, that this is the truth. Subsidization would almost certainly have to occur. Irregardless, the point still stands that no American companies even bothered to raise a stink about it, yet alone submit a proposal. Find one US company who even WANTS the job.dilloduck said:I said they didnt even bid on the deal either because they can't afford it or don't want it. The only other way would be for them to be subsidized. If people want the ports operated by an American company, first they are going to have to find one and subsidize it. It's not a slap to anyone--it's reality.
The ClayTaurus said:I can speak from real-time experience, Arch, that this is the truth. Subsidization would almost certainly have to occur. Irregardless, the point still stands that no American companies even bothered to raise a stink about it, yet alone submit a proposal. Find one US company who even WANTS the job.
I say to you, name one company willing to do the work. Talk of outsourcing and all of that is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that there isn't anyone, domestically, willing to do it. The only way you could even garner interest would be through the promise of subsidization. Do you know any companies who want to do the work?archangel said:The COO of the UAE company is a American Businessman..they want their cake and eat it too...it all boils down to cheap labor and kickbacks...are you that naieve?Outsourcing is the name of the game today by both parties and their contributors...I am sickened by it and continue the good old fight & protest...for my kids and grandkids sake...what say you?
The ClayTaurus said:I say to you, name one company willing to do the work. Talk of outsourcing and all of that is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that there isn't anyone, domestically, willing to do it. The only way you could even garner interest would be through the promise of subsidization. Do you know any companies who want to do the work?
So I guess my "real-time" experience doesn't mean much to you, then, eh Arch?archangel said:to do the work because they can do it under the umbrella of a foreign nation or company...and what makes you think the UAE aren't being subsidized? After all we do pay one hellava lot for rent space to launch from...get real Jr.Executive! And where is our repayment from liberating their neighbor from Sadaams original invasion...which is why we are now still engaging the same enemy and paying all the ME idiots to save them from being conquered from their bro's! Back to the outsourcing as it falls in line with this analogy...we pay and pay and pay..but does middle America receive the profits...hell no International corporations along with US corps who sold out and joined the party!
and we differ how then? I'm willing to hear it out. At the same time, this deal has brought to my attention just how much of our points of entry are in foreign hands. Yeah, I do think UAE is and should be considered different and with more scrutiny than UK. At the same time, think Singapore should be given more scrutiny than UAE, from what I've heard thus far.dilloduck said:Thats just it. No one is in the loop yet. But I sure as hell can recognize an outright lie when hear one. I'm content to wait since everyone is now demanding to know all the nitty gritty detail of this deal. I'm not quite ready to jump off cliff because Hillary and Chuck are telling me to panic. How much of our national security will have to be outed to make everyone feel safe?
UAE Company Agrees to Delay Ports Takeover
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago
A United Arab Emirates company offered Thursday to delay part of its $6.8 billion takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give the Bush administration more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.
The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, which has threatened to block the deal because of the UAE's purported ties to terrorism.
Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration and Congress. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.
The company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world.
"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.
"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."
The announcement came as the political furor persisted over the deal, which was supposed to be completed in early March. Concerned about national security implications, Democrats pushed Thursday for a new 45-day investigation into the business transaction.
The delay did not appease some of the deal's harshest critics.
"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.
...A Modest Proposal
Neither side has noticed that there is a fairly obvious compromise staring us in the face, which Big Lizards believes would resolve the very real security concerns without losing the equally real security benefits from this deal.
Both the actual national-security risk and also the political danger come, not from the ownership of the company, but rather from the day to day management -- the actual control of operations. The emirate wants the profits that accrue from ownership; rational Americans want to see control of the port, even the cargo areas, in friendly hands, preferably American.
This suggests a workable compromise: an American company should be chartered -- American owned and American managed -- that is a wholly owned but independently operated subsidiary of Dubai Ports... call it American Port Services, Inc., or somesuch name that makes clear the nationality; and then let all the actual management of the ports be handled by the American APS, not by Dubai Ports.
This will add a middle corporate layer, so Dubai Ports won't make quite as much of a profit as they would running the ports directly; but on the other hand, it's still better than no profit at all. And Americans can be assured that rather than shifting from British control to UAE control, we will in fact have shifted from British to American control of port operations.
This resolves both the security and the political problems:
* Americans will be running day to day operations, quieting the very real fears of terrorist infiltration;
* Republican senators, representatives, and governors can truthfully say that they negotiated a much better deal with the president, so their protest to the initial version was successful;
* President Bush can deliver on his promise to a friend and ally in the war on jihadi terrorism, thus gaining even more cooperation from the UAE on anti-terrorist measures -- and making America more secure;
* The White House and Republicans in Congress and the state houses can again unite on matters of national security, as before;
* The only losers will be the hysterical Democrats: unlike the Republicans, who insisted only upon more "scrutiny" of the deal, Democrats have simply been howling for the whole thing to be killed... and they'll be left out in the cold by a solid, secure "new deal" that incorporates all the benefits while avoiding the dangerous pitfalls.
Once again, the Democrats have overreacted, demanding death to the deal, when in fact we can address the real and sincere threats without having to pull the beard of a long-time ally in the war effort. As Dubai Ports has already agreed to "whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal," they should be willing to sign off on being a holding company, rather than the actual operator, which will be "American Port Services," or whatever they decide to call it.
All sides will be satisfied, and we can then proceed with the deal.
HOW THE PORT SELLOUT WAS FINANCED
By Michelle Malkin · February 21, 2006 10:39 AM
A tipster e-mailed me last night:
I work as a corporate lawyer at a large law firm that has a speciality in Islamic finance. The real reason Dubai Ports World is undergoing the transaction is because of an Islamic finance vehicle called the sukuk. The sukuk is essentially a commerical paper type of Islamic financle vehicle--it is essentially a "fake" bond to work around the Muslim prohibition on interest.
Now comes the interesting part.
As you might know, Dubai has recently christened (my word) its stock exchange. It hasn't been very successful thus far--so they've been looking to
acquire really high profile items to trade on it. (Note: they also tried to buy the Refco assets after Refco collapsed). If the Dubai Ports World sukuk goes through, it becomes the largest publicly traded sukuk in the world.
As a result, Dubai instantly becomes the place to go for Islamic finance in the world--and folks specializing in Islamic finance stand to make a great deal of money.
Here's some background on how the bidding war between Dubai Ports World and the other competitor to buy out British-based P& O's port operations, Singapores PSA (the more experienced and established of the two bidders), shook out via ITP News, Jan. 26, 2006:
The multi-billion dollar bidding war between Dubai and Singapore over the British ports and ferries operator P&O could be settled this week.
Dubai Ports World (DPW), owned by the emirate's government, fired the first shot when it made a bid of US$5.91 billion in November 2005. However, Singapores PSA has hit back, approaching P&O with a conditional counter offer of US$6.21 billion. A formal offer could be submitted within the next few days.
PSAs conditions were that it be allowed to complete satisfactory due diligence, that its board give final approval, that P&Os directors withdraw their recommendation of the DPW offer, and that P&Os pension trustees approve the offer.
PSA has operations in 11 countries and is the worlds second-largest ports group. By contrast, DPW was formed as recently as September with the amalgamation of the Dubai Ports Authority and DPI Terminals.
The companys container throughput is roughly a third of what PSA handles. However, if DPW were to acquire P&O currently the worlds fourth-largest ports group the industry landscape would shift dramatically. Not only would DPW immediately become the second-largest player in the marketplace, it would also have secured key ports in India and Australia markets in which fast traffic growth is anticipated...
...In order to help fund the massive bid, Dubai Ports, Customs & Free Zone Corporation (PCFC) have launched the worlds largest sukuk, or Sharia-compliant bond. What was intended as a US $2.8 billion issue has instead rocketed to US $3.5 billion, after an overwhelming response from investors. Lead-managed by Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB) and Barclays Capital, the distinctive sukuk is also the first convertible instrument in the Islamic finance market.
The issue is just one of a series of initiatives designed to boost the PCFCs corporate activities, ongoing business development needs and expansion plans. Its unique convertible structure allows partial redemption of up to 30% in the form of equity shares of the PCFC entities as and when they go for a Public Equity Offering within the next three years. If no Public Equity Offering takes place prior to the final redemption date, investors will be compensated with a higher yield.
The Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) listed the world's largest Sukuk, worth US $3.5 billion, from Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCFC) on Jan. 26th, 2006. PSA withdrew last week.
Alex Alexiev, of the Center for Security Policy, points out:
Washington claims that the United Arab Emirates is a reliable friend and ally of the United States in the war on terror. To the extent that Dubai Ports World is a UAE state-owned company, this may in fact be the key question to ask. The answer is not hard to find if you start looking at the role played by the UAE as an eager financier of the huge worldwide infrastructure of radical Islam built over the past three decades by Saudi Arabia. An infrastructure thats the main breeding ground of extremism and terrorism.
From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for Islamic activities and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.
One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million presented to W. D. Muhammad, Elijahs son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAEs president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal. Zayad continued his philanthropic activities by donating $2.5 million for a Zayad Islamic Center at Harvard Universitys divinity school of all places. The donation had to be returned after it became known that a similar Zayad Center in the UAE was closed because it had become a hotbed of Islamic extremism. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg. A reliable friend and ally? Perhaps, but hardly one of ours.
Dubai media outlets are calling critics and skeptics of the port sellout "Islamophobes."
If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an "Islamophobe," and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an "Islamophobe," I plead guilty.
***
Joe Gandelman has a big news round-up and analysis.
Bush would accept slight delay in ports deal-Rove
Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would accept a slight delay in permitting Dubai Ports World to acquire a British company that operates six key U.S. ports, senior White House adviser Karl Rove told Fox News.
When asked if Bush would accept a slight delay in implementing the takeover of P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Rove said: "Yes, look, there are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week.
"There's no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after that," he said in an interview with FOX News Talks' "The Tony Snow Show".
Reliefs
Kasala Relief
Iraq Relief
As the situation in Iraq began worsening after the fall of the sovereign .. the country came under lot of destruction and ruin . The Iraqi nation was suffering from fear, starvation and miserable living conditions. In such a situation the greatest looser was the Childhood .. Children of Iraq suffered from lack of nutrition and health care .
Palestine Relief
The continuing aggression from the occupying forces against unarmed Palestinians coupled with the blockade, the destruction of the resources of state, not to mention random attacks on innocent children, the elderly and women as part of a collective punishment campaign has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and the wounding of thousands..
Bam Relief
People of Bam, Iranian city, wokeup on a terrible disaster .. an Earth quake that crumbled the city to dust in less than 20 seconds . About 30.000 people were burried alive due to the earthqauke and injuries raised to 70.000 . help them now and dont delay ..
Kathianne said:and we differ how then? I'm willing to hear it out. At the same time, this deal has brought to my attention just how much of our points of entry are in foreign hands. Yeah, I do think UAE is and should be considered different and with more scrutiny than UK. At the same time, think Singapore should be given more scrutiny than UAE, from what I've heard thus far.
30-45 days seems reasonable time in which to get some facts.
Offer some updilloduck said:There are pros and cons to every debate. Many of the cons being expressed are lies and falsehoods. Any oppnents to the plan examining any of the pros?
Yeah, whatever. I know that no one is doing so intentionally, if they actually are. You would insinuate they are, then call being called on that a 'personal attack.' So whatever.dilloduck said:There are pros and cons to every debate. Many of the cons being expressed are lies and falsehoods. Any oppnents to the plan examining any of the pros?
Kathianne said:Yeah, whatever. I know that no one is doing so intentionally, if they actually are. You would insinuate they are, then call being called on that a 'personal attack.' So whatever.
The ClayTaurus said:So I guess my "real-time" experience doesn't mean much to you, then, eh Arch?
You're exactly right. They don't want the work. Glad you understand that.
It's subsidized to the extent that the Navy and Coast Guard pretty much only give work to US firms. Maybe subsidation isn't the right word, insulated is probably a better choice.archangel said:"Real Time Experience"??? You have claimed you are a Jr.Marine Architech...is this a subsidized position? And how does it relate to running a Port of Entry? This will be very interesting to see the dots connected!
