SexyBossyBBW
Posts: 1693
Joined: 2/25/2010
Status: offline
|
I didn't realize the word bush in a post, would give you such a boner, since my thread was about capitalism, and my occasional discomfort with it. It was not about the US president who couldn't speak English, bless his heart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-are-any-us-ports-owne_b_16325.html.quote:
Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments. According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.
You don't have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments. Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we're going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I'm sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York's finest.)
Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities. In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration's ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW
quote:
IT NEVER HAPPENED http://www.dailyrepublican.com/chinesegot.html.
quote:
The Navy base property is about to be leased to a Communist China-owned shipping company under an agreement that was only made possible by the intervention of the White House. Forced by a court order, Port of Long Beach officials have now set March 12, 1997 for a new public hearing on plans to bulldoze the Naval Station and lease the property to the Comunist Chinese shipping company.
Im guessing that your link is intended to be proof that "IT" happened. Do you recall what that was in response to? Let me remind you.quote:
I remember some years ago Bush contracted out our wharves to the Chinese, which I thought was a terrible move, but they haven't starved us out yet. 1. The contract was NOT negotiated by the Federal government. It may have been accomplished with the intervention/permission of the Federal government, but that is not the same thing.
2. BUSH wasnt President in 1997.
3. As I said in my last post, we have been contracting out ports to China since 1985. IT DOESNT HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH THE DUBAI PORTS DEAL WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO OF YOU WERE RANTING ABOUT. Ranting about?! A little crazy much? I didn't rant about anything, yet.
Anyway, since you wanted more info with bush in it, here you go wilbur:
http://www.maavak.net/rwolf/rwolf073.htmlquote:
WHO CONTROLS US PORTS? By S. Rowan Wolf, PhD Uncommon Thought Journal, Feb 23, 2006 The uproar goes on about Dubai Ports World's $6.8 billion contract to operate U.S. ports.
So the real truth is that DP did not buy into the contract, they acquired it as part of the operating assets of British P&O. But the Congressional outcry about "foreign" operations of US ports - even military - rings very hollow. This control is nothing new, and numerous ports are in the hands of international corporations and foreign nations - including China. What has happened is that an ugly truth has come to light. Part of globalization under GATT has been the privatization of ports in the United States and in the rest of the world. India and Colombia are also hard hit. Try a search on control of port operations and they come up most frequently. The media, and Congress, are very carefully keeping the ugly truth out of the limelight. The outrage over "foreign" control extends only as far as the UAE - not to British P&O who ran the ports in question. Certainly not to the Chinese control of west coast ports. Are there security issues? You bet. But even beyond security is sovereignty. The selling off the ports is a big money maker, but those ports were OURS. Now, they are in the hands of transnational corporations. Those corporations, regardless of their purported point of origin, know no allegiance.
The corporatization of the ports has numerous ramifications. The current flap is just one. It is no surprise that Bush, and his cabinet and appointees, would be caught off guard by the uproar. They are corporate rooted and see the issue from the perspective of corporations, and not from the perspective of control of borders, sovereignty, or security. It is just a non-issue. Likewise, they have no intention of blocking DP's takeover (or any other transnational operation). It's just business after all. Of course, like so many of the decisions made and policies set in the last five years, the corporate connected administration is linked to the company involved - and sure to gain either now or later. That connection is through Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the other is "David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration." Certainly it cannot hurt the oil oriented Bush and Cheney to strengthen bonds to the oil rich UAE.
So while the liars in Washington do Broadway performances of outrage over a Middle Eastern country in control of major U.S. ports, we should probably ask them who else is controlling our ports - and why. Then they can also be asked why they signed away our sovereignty with the signing of GATT (and NAFTA). They can also be asked why knowing the situation, it took them four and a half years after the "attack" to realize this might create some holes in the nation's security. So why is this such a big and public stink? My best guess is "public perception." The news got out that the UAE via government owned DP was going to be controlling major ports in the US. The fuel for the "war on terrorism" and the rewriting of Constitutional rights and protections has been a racist and ethnocentric campaign. That campaign has made "Arab" and "Muslim" the literal face of the enemy. It has made every Arab/Muslim state a potential threat. The news of the port controls could do nothing else but strike the chord of fear and outrage in a propagandized US public.
George W. Bush may be able to disregard law and the Constitution, but Congress does seek reelection and must face home town crowds at some point. The hypocrisy of supporting racial and religious profiling, and the aggressive actions against "States supporting terrorism" on the one hand, and allowing the UAE to control ports in the US is glaring.However, they really don't want to talk about the corporate control of the US ports because even a fool realizes that "border control" and "security" are compromised if major entry points are in "private" control. Anyway, I don't expect this to assuage your anger, since Ron seems to kick your arse all over these boards regularly. Apparently my sin was agreeing with him, thereby pissing you off beyond words. M
|
RE: I don't always love capitalism. What say you? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread