Bush backs sale of port operations to DP World

[Jhhnn]

From Condor-

"Well, Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal!! I guess Bush is just trying to measure and get liberal approval."

Utter crap and agitprop. The turnover of the canal to the Panamanians had been negotiated for a very long time, preceding Clinton's term. The actual treaty was negotiated in 1977, with the transfer occuring on-schedule in 1999. The fact that the Panamanians chose a Chinese company to run it for them, in part, has nothing to do with Clinton or his policies- after the turnover, it became Panamanian, not American...

http://www.acus.org/docs/9907-Panama_Canal_Transition_Final_Implementation.pdf

And, hey, it's very important to provide investment opportunities to the folks receiving our jobs and money, otherwise the value of the dollar would diminish, and with it the profit margin of the true Bush constituency, corporate America... Japanese, Chinese Dubai and Saudi concerns all own big chunks of America, one way or another... Trade deficits, low taxes and govt deficits aren't really free, after all...

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Condor
Well, Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal!! I guess Bush is just trying to measure and get liberal approval.

What? We didn't even own the Panama Canal to be able to sell it. It was transferred to the control of the Panama Canal Authority, an agency of the government of Panama, per the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 with the final transfer happening in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal

You missed the reading comp and general knowledge parts of the essay. Clinton sold US military reservations on both ends. No one cares who owns the actual canal. It is all about who can control traffic through it. We no longer can! You should learn to do complete research:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/panama.htm

RED CHINESE CRIME SYNDICATES EXPLOIT PORT CONTROL IN PANAMA

"A U.S. Southern Command intelligence report from October 1999 called the leases of Balboa and Cristobal by Panama Ports Co., a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, ?a potential threat.?

"The Southern Command report stated that China is not likely to sabotage the Panama Canal but could use the port facilities as ?a conduit for illegal shipments of technology? to China, or to ?facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas.?

"Pentagon officials have said China could use its access to the ports to disrupt shipping if a conflict erupts between China and Taiwan, and the U.S. military was called in to defend the island.

And http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=haddadg&date=040415And http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/m-5.html

And http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?...@4((@1(Rep+Rohrabacher++Dana))+00979))

To see it more clearly:

But Bill Clinton says there is no danger for the United States. An incredible statement considering the U.S. will now have no military presence in the area; the U.S. navy will be cut in two if access to the Canal is shut off; there will be no way to stop South American drug traffic; and the Chinese may have nuclear missiles on our own former bases.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/withchinaperched.htm

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not every Middle Eastern country and/or company is filled with radical fundies ready to kill us all at a moments notice. Could someone explain to me how a legitimate Middle Eastern company operating a US port makes us significantly less safe than if the port is US owned? Security procedures are set by the government, and the oversight rules on operating a port will be the same as well. Our intelligence agencies seem to agree with me, and there was no dissenting voice on the vote to go ahead with this. Tone down the FUD a little...jeez.

I would have to agree with you. A legitimate company would have no interest in allowing people and things that would be detrimental to the economy to be smuggled in.

They can pose as legitimate workers. Remember some of these terrorists are well educated, and it wouldn't be a stretch for one of them to get a job with any company. It's not like they are all poor cave dwelling thugs, some of them are Polo wearing, college educated thugs.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I dont see what is wrong with UAE

they are a pretty moderate Muslim country.

This is why westerners flock there.

Yes, they are pretty moderate until the Osama-wannas and other Jihadis decide to take a tour and take some photos of the country, while sampling KFC and McDonalds delicacies.

 

[dahunan]

We Americans are TOO STUPID to run it ourselves

Just like the IDIOTS who never reported the 9/11 Hijackers who only wanted to learn how to fly a plane after it was already in the air

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Condor
Well, Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal!! I guess Bush is just trying to measure and get liberal approval.

What? We didn't even own the Panama Canal to be able to sell it. It was transferred to the control of the Panama Canal Authority, an agency of the government of Panama, per the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 with the final transfer happening in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal

You missed the reading comp and general knowledge parts of the essay. Clinton sold US military reservations on both ends. No one cares who owns the actual canal. It is all about who can control traffic through it. We no longer can! You should learn to do complete research:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/panama.htm

RED CHINESE CRIME SYNDICATES EXPLOIT PORT CONTROL IN PANAMA

"A U.S. Southern Command intelligence report from October 1999 called the leases of Balboa and Cristobal by Panama Ports Co., a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, ?a potential threat.?

"The Southern Command report stated that China is not likely to sabotage the Panama Canal but could use the port facilities as ?a conduit for illegal shipments of technology? to China, or to ?facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas.?

"Pentagon officials have said China could use its access to the ports to disrupt shipping if a conflict erupts between China and Taiwan, and the U.S. military was called in to defend the island.

And http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=haddadg&date=040415And http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/m-5.html

And http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?...@4((@1(Rep+Rohrabacher++Dana))+00979))

To see it more clearly:

But Bill Clinton says there is no danger for the United States. An incredible statement considering the U.S. will now have no military presence in the area; the U.S. navy will be cut in two if access to the Canal is shut off; there will be no way to stop South American drug traffic; and the Chinese may have nuclear missiles on our own former bases.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/withchinaperched.htm

And I repeat, Clinton didn't SELL anything to the Chinese. I even bolded it in your post so you wouldn't miss it. The Panamanians leased those ports to the Chinese. It's their right to do so, it's their land. Now, you can bring up the issues with the bidding process and say it was fixed, and that may be true. But Clinton didn't have anything to do with that either.

The contracting of management for the ports in the US is different, because it is IN the US. We actually have some control over that. That said, if we are going open up management of facilities like these to the highest bidder, we are going to have foreign companies bidding and sometimes winning. There is no way around it.

And the same goes for the Panama Canal and the ports in Iraq. Except those weren't open for bidding and were given to a US company because you had to have some sort of security clearance. Except that company didn't have one, either. But whoever said only the Panamanians had shady deals going when awarding contracts.

 

[Looney]

Why were the republicans so concern about the Chinese buying an American oil company, but isn't concern about a matter like this?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Looney
Why were the republicans so concern about the Chinese buying an American oil company, but isn't concern about a matter like this?

Because its an OIL COMPANY.
We know whats more important than Americans security.
And its OIL.
Texas T

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Condor
Well, Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal!! I guess Bush is just trying to measure and get liberal approval.

What? We didn't even own the Panama Canal to be able to sell it. It was transferred to the control of the Panama Canal Authority, an agency of the government of Panama, per the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 with the final transfer happening in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal

You missed the reading comp and general knowledge parts of the essay. Clinton sold US military reservations on both ends. No one cares who owns the actual canal. It is all about who can control traffic through it. We no longer can! You should learn to do complete research:

http://www.conservativeusa.org/panama.htm

RED CHINESE CRIME SYNDICATES EXPLOIT PORT CONTROL IN PANAMA

"A U.S. Southern Command intelligence report from October 1999 called the leases of Balboa and Cristobal by Panama Ports Co., a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, ?a potential threat.?

"The Southern Command report stated that China is not likely to sabotage the Panama Canal but could use the port facilities as ?a conduit for illegal shipments of technology? to China, or to ?facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas.?

"Pentagon officials have said China could use its access to the ports to disrupt shipping if a conflict erupts between China and Taiwan, and the U.S. military was called in to defend the island.

And http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=haddadg&date=040415And http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/m-5.html

And http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?...@4((@1(Rep+Rohrabacher++Dana))+00979))

To see it more clearly:

But Bill Clinton says there is no danger for the United States. An incredible statement considering the U.S. will now have no military presence in the area; the U.S. navy will be cut in two if access to the Canal is shut off; there will be no way to stop South American drug traffic; and the Chinese may have nuclear missiles on our own former bases.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/withchinaperched.htm

And I repeat, Clinton didn't SELL anything to the Chinese. I even bolded it in your post so you wouldn't miss it. The Panamanians leased those ports to the Chinese. It's their right to do so, it's their land. Now, you can bring up the issues with the bidding process and say it was fixed, and that may be true. But Clinton didn't have anything to do with that either.

The contracting of management for the ports in the US is different, because it is IN the US. We actually have some control over that. That said, if we are going open up management of facilities like these to the highest bidder, we are going to have foreign companies bidding and sometimes winning. There is no way around it.

And the same goes for the Panama Canal and the ports in Iraq. Except those weren't open for bidding and were given to a US company because you had to have some sort of security clearance. Except that company didn't have one, either. But whoever said only the Panamanians had shady deals going when awarding contracts.

You are in denial. They have drugs for that. OOPS! I forgot!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not every Middle Eastern country and/or company is filled with radical fundies ready to kill us all at a moments notice. Could someone explain to me how a legitimate Middle Eastern company operating a US port makes us significantly less safe than if the port is US owned? Security procedures are set by the government, and the oversight rules on operating a port will be the same as well. Our intelligence agencies seem to agree with me, and there was no dissenting voice on the vote to go ahead with this. Tone down the FUD a little...jeez.

I would have to agree with you. A legitimate company would have no interest in allowing people and things that would be detrimental to the economy to be smuggled in.

They can pose as legitimate workers. Remember some of these terrorists are well educated, and it wouldn't be a stretch for one of them to get a job with any company. It's not like they are all poor cave dwelling thugs, some of them are Polo wearing, college educated thugs.

Sure, that's certainly the kind of thing I would do if I was a terrorist. But so what, how is that any more or less of a threat depending on who is actually running the show?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dahunan
We Americans are TOO STUPID to run it ourselves

Just like the IDIOTS who never reported the 9/11 Hijackers who only wanted to learn how to fly a plane after it was already in the air

I'm not sure that is the red flag people are making it out to be. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it's not always so easy to tell when things are happening. Taking off and landing are the hardest parts of learning to fly (landing being by far the most difficult part of learning to fly), it's not unreasonable to start flight instruction in the air.

Of course some of the other things the 9/11 terrorists did probably should have sent up red flags. But again, it's easy to say that after 9/11...maybe not so easy at the time.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not every Middle Eastern country and/or company is filled with radical fundies ready to kill us all at a moments notice. Could someone explain to me how a legitimate Middle Eastern company operating a US port makes us significantly less safe than if the port is US owned? Security procedures are set by the government, and the oversight rules on operating a port will be the same as well. Our intelligence agencies seem to agree with me, and there was no dissenting voice on the vote to go ahead with this. Tone down the FUD a little...jeez.

I would have to agree with you. A legitimate company would have no interest in allowing people and things that would be detrimental to the economy to be smuggled in.

They can pose as legitimate workers. Remember some of these terrorists are well educated, and it wouldn't be a stretch for one of them to get a job with any company. It's not like they are all poor cave dwelling thugs, some of them are Polo wearing, college educated thugs.

Sure, that's certainly the kind of thing I would do if I was a terrorist. But so what, how is that any more or less of a threat depending on who is actually running the show?

It's probably unionized in the US. If not, the job will still mostly consist of Americans... who are less likely to be terrorist... or a terrorist sympathizer who will turn terrorist. Whereas if you have all those jobs filled with Saudi Arabian workers... there's a bigger chance of it happening.

 

[Train]

My question is, if the ports are for sale, is this the only company interested in buying? Are there no American companies interested in running these ports?

If the govt wants to sell the a private org, and there is only one company willing to buy, I guess theres really no option. I just hope the govt jacks up the price as much as they can.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not every Middle Eastern country and/or company is filled with radical fundies ready to kill us all at a moments notice. Could someone explain to me how a legitimate Middle Eastern company operating a US port makes us significantly less safe than if the port is US owned? Security procedures are set by the government, and the oversight rules on operating a port will be the same as well. Our intelligence agencies seem to agree with me, and there was no dissenting voice on the vote to go ahead with this. Tone down the FUD a little...jeez.

I would have to agree with you. A legitimate company would have no interest in allowing people and things that would be detrimental to the economy to be smuggled in.

They can pose as legitimate workers. Remember some of these terrorists are well educated, and it wouldn't be a stretch for one of them to get a job with any company. It's not like they are all poor cave dwelling thugs, some of them are Polo wearing, college educated thugs.

Sure, that's certainly the kind of thing I would do if I was a terrorist. But so what, how is that any more or less of a threat depending on who is actually running the show?

It's probably unionized in the US. If not, the job will still mostly consist of Americans... who are less likely to be terrorist... or a terrorist sympathizer who will turn terrorist. Whereas if you have all those jobs filled with Saudi Arabian workers... there's a bigger chance of it happening.

I don't know about that. Terrorists aren't just randomly distributed around Arab society, behaving normally until they suddenly snap and do some terrorist thing on the spur of the moment. Terrorist operations are well thought out and well planned, and they are targetted against specific places, not just the place a terrorist happens to be working or living. This idea that one can avoid terrorism by avoiding Arabs asumes that terrorists don't have a mind of their own, don't plan anything, that they are Arabs who randomly go nuts.

If terrorists want to do something to those ports using sleeper agents posing as workers, they will simply get people to get jobs there. It makes no difference who else works there, I don't think a terrorist would have a harder time getting a job at a US owned US port than a foreign operated US port.

This isn't like avoiding getting mugged by not walking through the dangerous parts of town at 3am, terrorists aren't just randomly violent to whoever happens to be around, they run operations as sophisticated as those of any military in the world. I fail to see how, if one of those ports is their target, the fact that a lot of other Arabs work there would be of any help. They might blend in a little better, but in the US, being a minority no longer really seems to make you stand out.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Condor
You are in denial. They have drugs for that. OOPS! I forgot!

Yep, I'm the one who's in denial.

You have yet to provide one link to back up your original assertion that "Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal". Even your own links talk about the leasing of ports along the canal to the Chinese and that being done by the Panamanians as well as the contracting for operations of the canal to the Chinese again by the Panamanians. The only mention of Clinton is that he was President at the time and didn't do anything to force the Panamanians not to sign these leases or contracts. But of course he couldn't have done anything since Panama is a sovereign country that has a right to sign leases and contracts with whomever they wish.

But I'm the one who's got a problem with reality. Whatever.

 

[dimensionOFdissension]

I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

Neo-Conservatism.. that is the disease he has.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

Neo-Conservatism.. that is the disease he has.

What does that have to do with neo-conservatism? Or am I too tired right now?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

Neo-Conservatism.. that is the disease he has.

What does that have to do with neo-conservatism? Or am I too tired right now?

IMO, they blame everything on Clinton and consider him a Chi-Com lover .. no matter the facts.. They also think he was a big pussy who wasn't willing to spread American Diplomacy/Democracy via the use of dead GI's.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

I'd like to know as well.
kthxby

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Condor

Well, Clinton sold the Chinese the Panama Canal!!

I guess Bush is just trying to measure and get liberal approval.[/quote]

This Clinton nonsense by the resident Republicans is way beyond over the top.

 

[jimkyser]

But wait, Condor swears I am the one who is delusional for arguing with him about this. How could that be?

Amazingly, he hasn't come back here to defend himself since y'all piled on.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
I can't believe an able-minded adult made this claim: 'Clinton sold the Panama Canal to the Chinese'.
Seriously what kind of mental retardation does it take to twist reality into this type of claim?

I'd like to know as well.
kthxby

He'd probably give you an explanation such as the one in my sig.

 

[Jadow]

DP World?

Sounds like the name of a porn site.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: jimkyser
I originally posted this in the other thread about this that was locked as a repost.

Hey, it's open market capitalism at it's best. No one wants the government running the ports because that is bureaucratic and inefficient, so it gets outsourced to private industry. Everyone wants private industry to maximize returns for shareholders, so they sell assets when the offer is good. The thing is, you really have no control over who is the final corporate 'owner' this way.

Of course all of the other ports begin run by Dubai Ports are hot beds of terrorism, aren't they? I mean they're an Islamic emirate, how could it be any different?

This is a government company (just not ours) and not a private one. They had past issues with terrorist smuggling in their home country in a port run by the same folks, so why not use them?