posted
CSX not only serves all five of the East and Gulf Coast ports involved in the transaction between British P&O Navagation and the Dubai concern, but also previously had a transaction with this same UAE concern when they exitted the port management business themselves as part of their maritime operations divestment (Sea Land sold to Maersk).
I'm at a loss to think of any impact from the transaction when and if it moves forth, to CSX or any transportation company. In fact I think the topic title sums up the tempest in the teapot.
But contrary thoughts could be held; discussion anyone?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I regard this as giving the keys of your house to a good friend of a know burgler. There is absolutely no way this should be allowed to happen. It is an open pipe to the source of the poison trying to destroy us. I really do not feel that the contract to P&O when it was British, but that is reasonable understandable, but for it to go to the ownership of what is at best a mediveial monarch has got to be totally unaceptable.
Regardless of what sort of face they try to put on it these are still people that regard us as infidels that they do not have to be honest with. When they say that to question in the most reasonable manner giving the control of our ports to a foreign power, that is any foreign power, is "disrespect" it is obvious that they are not on a wavelength we can communicate with.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears, Mr Harris, that New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is the 'Don't worry, be happy' persuasion. He seems to think the matter is of no concern insorar as either security or economic and efficient operations of the Port. In my opinion, Mr. Kristof is pretty much 'center' in a conservsative (Tierney) to liberal (Dowd) scale of their columnists.
Brief passage therefrom:
Let's be blunt: this fuss about ports is really about Arabs.
Port terminals have been managed, without alarm, by companies from Britain, China, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. So let's look at the arguments of those who believe we should discriminate against Arabs. ...
Look, Kristof, if this is discrimination against Arabs, that's because it was Arabs who attacked us on 9/11 and still threaten us today. If Singaporeans were plotting to set off nuclear explosions in American cities, then we'd scrutinize them, too.
Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.
For those with access to paid subscription Times Select, here's the "full monty":
As this matter moves away from congressional bi-partisanship (it's us against the White House) to polarization (Bill Frist, Rick Santorum will find "it's not a bad idea after all while Hillary and Ted need no quotes) on the other, Mr Kristof seems to set forth in a highly influential newspaper with world wide circulation a balanced approach.
I'm not worried.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
