Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (59877)	3/2/2006 12:14:34 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 360923

How many ports??? Bush says Dubai will operate terminals at six US ports. This article says 21. UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports upi.com MovieGuy has made some calls ... his comments follow: econbrowser.com P&O Ports North America has full operational control of at least three major terminals at the Port of Tampa. The Port of Tampa is not identified in the DHS fact sheet. Why not? P&O Ports North America has full operational control of three or more terminals at the Port of Lake Charles. More, P&O is identified in a corporate news release as the "exclusive freight handler for the Port of Lake Charles, providing terminal operations, stevedoring, log-yard and rail operations." It would appear the P&O is running most of that port's operations. The Port of Lake Charles is not identified in the DHS fact sheet. Why not? The DHS fact sheet states that "DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports." Obviously, this is a false statement as demonstrated by the exclusion of the P&O full operational control terminal operations conducted at the Port of Tampa and Port of Lake Charles as well as the exclusion of an apparent joint venture full operational control terminal operation at Port Newark, which falls into the same category of operation as the Port of Philadelphia terminal operaton included in the DHS fact sheet. The Port of Lake Charles is not one of the six ports listed , nor is the Port of Tampa. So, a minimum of 6 terminals are missing from the full operational control of a terminal consideration you mentioned. Plus two to three ports are missing from the list under such criteria. What the DHS fact sheet dated 22 February 2005 really says is that "DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States' ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:", followed by the identification of the ports and number of terminals as: Port of Baltimore - 2 terminals Port of Philadelphia - 1 terminal Port of Miami - 1 terminal Port of New Orleans - 2 terminals Port of Houston - 4 terminals Port of Virginia - stevedoring support activities at 5 terminals The term, "operate at", is inclusive and would not necessarily be limited to full operational control. So, the fact sheet is off to a rough start with that phrase, considering that P&O Ports North America is conducting operations at 22 U.S. ports and at least 55 terminals located at such ports, not 6 or 7 U.S. ports and 11-16 terminals, as stated by DHS. The fact sheet gives the appearance of having being pieced together or modified after its original draft. It's my understanding that this is a modified version of the original information released by DHS. For example, the Port of New York was dropped from the list, as I understand it. As mentioned previously in this post, the DHS fact sheet includes the documenting of 8 terminals where P&O operations are conducted, but P&O does not supposedly have full operational control over the terminals concerned. So, DHS has opened the door to include all terminals that P&O conducts operations at, not just those P&O has full operational control over. DHS has excluded the listing of joint full operational control of terminals at other ports. The Port Newark Container Terminal LLC (PNCT) at Port Newark is excluded from the DHS list of ports and terminals. Conversely, the joint operation of the Tioga Marine Terminal by P&O and DRS at the Port of Philadelphia is included. Other examples exist. Now, if the next justification by others is that DHS only considered container operations, be aware that P&O is conducting container operations at 15 ports, not 6 ports. So, once again the unknown DHS criteria for inclusion is questionable. Most importantly, DHS does not acknowledge in its fact sheet that the acquisition of P&O and P&O Ports North America by UAE DP World included the acquisition and transfer of operations at 22 Ports and at least 55 terminals on the East Coast and Gulf Coast, of which 49 terminals are concentrating on cargo other than cruise vessels and passengers. No amount of quibbling by DHS and anyone else will dismiss those facts. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has issued a false fact sheet on the UAE DP World acquisition of P&O and P&O Ports North America. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has made available on line the same false information with its 24 February 2006 update. Both U.S. Government documents cited should be corrected to reflect the whole truth, or should be removed immediately from both web sites. The supposed "fact sheets" issued by elements of the U.S. Government that need to corrected or removed immediately are: Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports DHS Press Room announcement Feb. 22, 2006 dhs.gov Securing U.S. Ports U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security Updated 02/24/2006 customs.ustreas.gov

To: SiouxPal who wrote (59877)	3/2/2006 5:47:38 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 360923

James and my Congressman :>) "3)United States Armed Forces should be re-deployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq’s constitution making process or September 30, 2006, whichever comes first.” Thompson Introduces Iraq Redeployment Plan FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 WASHINGTON—Congressman Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) today introduced legislation that would call for the redeployment of American forces in Iraq following the completion of the Iraqi constitutional amendment process. If passed, the bill would also honor the members of the U.S. armed forces and reserves for their service and express the sense of the Congress that the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq or interfere with Iraqi oil revenues. “Our brave men and women serving in Iraq have performed courageously and honorably and they deserve our thanks and respect,” Thompson said. “Congress and the president must set the bar and identify what it will take for us to accomplish the mission in Iraq. When the Iraqi people conclude the process of amending their constitution and establish their democratic government we must begin to re-deploy our troops.” The text of the bill states, “Resolved in the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that it is the sense of the Congress that— 1)the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq; 2)the United States should not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil; and 3)United States Armed Forces should be re-deployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq’s constitution making process or September 30, 2006, whichever comes first.” Thompson, a Vietnam combat veteran, began drafting the legislation upon returning from a Congressional visit to Iraq in late January. The trip was Thompson’s second to Iraq. In the fall of 2002 he traveled to the region to see first hand what American forces would face if they were sent to Iraq. Upon returning in October of 2002 Thompson penned an editorial explaining his reasons for traveling to Iraq and predicted that U.S military personnel would be engaged in protracted urban warfare for many years if we invaded. Thompson voted against the resolution giving the president the authority to invade Iraq. Thompson’s legislation is the only bill in Congress that stipulates that the Iraqi people should control their oil revenues; it is also the first to combine a withdrawal plan and a clear statement that the United States will not occupy permanent military bases in the country. “Today, the Iraqi insurgency is being fueled by the notion that we have become an occupying force in Iraq. We need to send a clear message that we have no intention on staying in Iraq indefinitely,” Thompson added. “Congress needs to tell the Iraqi people and the Arab world that we will not build permanent military bases in Iraq and that we will not attempt to control the flow of their oil.” # # # ONLINE VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT AVAILABLE: mikethompson.house.gov