The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
13 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 >   Reply to this topic

Anti-American? Anti-European?

*Kodos*
post 24.Feb.2006, 04:24 PM
Post #166


No personal attacks, sorry. You're going to have to find another vehicle to deride me.

The fact of the matter is that the Marine and I are polar opposites. I do not agree with the war in Iraq or 90% of the Bush Administration's actions. This should not come as a suprise to anyone because I have only said it a gogillion times on this forum.

The Marine has served his country proudly. I feel badly that he had to do so at the hands of money-grubbing profiteers.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Proud2busmarine*
post 24.Feb.2006, 04:48 PM
Post #167


Don't feel sorry for me. Truth be told, the majority of my service was under the Greatest President the free world has ever known, Ronald Reagan.

I didn't know the Pres.was making money off the war in Iraq? I guess it's all that oil he's stealing and turning around for a huge profit off the American people. Oh wait, that was the UN who was involved in the oil for food scam, right?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 24.Feb.2006, 04:55 PM
Post #168


Halliburton. Dick Cheney.

So...not Bush (directly). But Cheney was involved with Halliburton for years. And...Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts. That flies directly in the face of government procurement policies and procedures.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 24.Feb.2006, 04:55 PM
Post #169


By the way...

I really did like Ronald Reagan. I was so distraught, the day he left office, I stayed home from school.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Proud2busmarine*
post 24.Feb.2006, 05:03 PM
Post #170


QUOTE (Kang)
Halliburton. Dick Cheney.

So...not Bush (directly). But Cheney was involved with Halliburton for years. And...Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts. That flies directly in the face of government procurement policies and procedures.


Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President
Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000, and put all of his corporate shares into a blind trust, except 433,333 stock options worth about $8 million which are referenced in a Gift Trust Agreement pursuant to which an Administrative Agent has the right to exercise those options and distribute the proceeds from the sale of the resulting stock to certain charitable organizations. As part of his deferred compensation agreements with Halliburton contractually arranged prior to Cheney becoming Vice President, Cheney's public financial disclosure sheets filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics showed he received $162,392 in 2002 and $205,298 in 2001. Upon his nomination as a Vice Presidential candidate, Cheney purchased an insurance policy that would guarantee his deferred payments regardless of the company's performance, removing any conflict of interest. Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton. In the rebuilding of Iraq, Halliburton was granted a $7 billion no-bid contract, the execution of which received much scrutiny by U.S. Government auditors along with the media and various political opponents who also scrutinized the awarding of the contract, claiming that it represented a conflict of interest for Mr. Cheney. In June 2004, the General Accounting Office reviewed the contracting procedures [20] and found Halliburton's no-bid contracts were legal and likely justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs.

An old, tired argument. So unless you have something new, I think we can both drop this subject. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 24.Feb.2006, 07:26 PM
Post #171


QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
An old, tired argument. So unless you have something new, I think we can both drop this subject. Thanks.


Agreed.

For what it's worth...thank you for your service to our country. I really do appreciate it.
Go to the top of the page
+
Dogge
post 24.Feb.2006, 09:22 PM
Post #172
Joined: 15.May.2005

QUOTE (Benzed)
Anti American.

Almost lost the hate when I spent 5 months there

Something is screaming inferiority complex at me.

Or perhaps it is just possible you hate people who are born within the borders of the US.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 24.Feb.2006, 09:32 PM
Post #173
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

QUOTE (Dogge)
Man. I think you have a massive inferiority complex.

Or maybe you do just hate people who are born within the borders of the US.


well he likes to make big generalizations and is not known to keep away from prejudices
Go to the top of the page
+
*Proud2busmarine*
post 24.Feb.2006, 09:37 PM
Post #174


QUOTE (Kang)
Agreed.

For what it's worth...thank you for your service to our country. I really do appreciate it.


You're welcome, not a problem.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Kodos*
post 24.Feb.2006, 09:42 PM
Post #175


*hands the Marine some bilar as a peace offering*
Go to the top of the page
+
Dock Hussein Ellis
post 25.Feb.2006, 05:27 AM
Post #176
Joined: 9.Nov.2005

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Not that I'm obligated to answer, but no, on one hand I don't really like it. On the other hand, it's a private company from the UAE, not the government. The US is about free enterprise, isn't it?

No, the company is owned by the government of the UAE. What this proves is that the neocons put greed ahead of all else- including national security.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
The US isn't going to give up the practice of inspecting containers by the Dept of Homeland Security to my knowledge. As long as they keep the same workers and don't bring in Achmed and Muhammad from the desert to run things, it's hard to say no. Do I get the willies otherwise? Yes.


Do you think this purchase might make it a lot easier to infiltrate sleeper agents into the ports to provide surveilence and intel for attacks, kind of like the guys who did the scouting and provided the support network for the 9/11 attackers?
Go to the top of the page
+
Dock Hussein Ellis
post 25.Feb.2006, 05:48 AM
Post #177
Joined: 9.Nov.2005

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
the Greatest President the free world has ever known, Ronald Reagan.


(spits beer out of nose) You're joking, right? The man who declared ketchup a vegetable? The man who plunged the country into a recession through the idiocy of "trickle down economics" (read:the rich get richer, the poor can piss right off)? The man who created Osama Bin Laden? The man who funded Saddam Hussein? The man who was responsible for Iran Contra? The man who said "facts are stupid things"? Reagan was a genius compared to GB43, but come on- Abraham Lincoln (a Republican!) he was not.

Just for grins, what time frame do you use to define "the free world"? Personally, I don't think any US president since Truman has been worth a damn.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
I didn't know the Pres.was making money off the war in Iraq?

You need to understand the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"- as Chris Rock described it, Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his check is wealthy. The point is that wealthy people can look at money in the long term- 20, 30 years down the road. Like, after Iraq has a nice, stable puppet government and spreads "democracy" in the middle east. Unless the opposite happens and we create an industrialized terror state, and I'm sure Halliburton has a plan for making money off that, too.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Proud2busmarine*
post 25.Feb.2006, 11:41 AM
Post #178


QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
No, the company is owned by the government of the UAE. What this proves is that the neocons put greed ahead of all else- including national security.



Do you think this purchase might make it a lot easier to infiltrate sleeper agents into the ports to provide surveilence and intel for attacks, kind of like the guys who did the scouting and provided the support network for the 9/11 attackers?


My understanding is that it is a British company that is selling it's control to a UAE based company. Other than the government collecting tax revenue, exactly how are the "neo-cons" making any money?

As far as making it easier to bring in "sleeper agents", no I don't believe so. If anything, I would think that the intelligence community would watch these ports and the company even closer. Besides, if you want to come into the country, just come up through Mexico, as I'm sure many "sleepers" already have.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Proud2busmarine*
post 25.Feb.2006, 11:48 AM
Post #179


QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
(spits beer out of nose) You're joking, right? The man who declared ketchup a vegetable? The man who plunged the country into a recession through the idiocy of "trickle down economics" (read:the rich get richer, the poor can piss right off)? The man who created Osama Bin Laden? The man who funded Saddam Hussein? The man who was responsible for Iran Contra? The man who said "facts are stupid things"? Reagan was a genius compared to GB43, but come on- Abraham Lincoln (a Republican!) he was not.

Just for grins, what time frame do you use to define "the free world"? Personally, I don't think any US president since Truman has been worth a damn.



You need to understand the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"- as Chris Rock described it, Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his check is wealthy. The point is that wealthy people can look at money in the long term- 20, 30 years down the road. Like, after Iraq has a nice, stable puppet government and spreads "democracy" in the middle east. Unless the opposite happens and we create an industrialized terror state, and I'm sure Halliburton has a plan for making money off that, too.


Maybe you sould put that beer down and stop basing your philosophy on a comedian.
Go to the top of the page
+
Franko
post 25.Feb.2006, 11:50 AM
Post #180
Joined: 16.Jan.2006

It's not only Americans who are unhappy abouut the sale of P&O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy ending to P&O story has bittersweet plot twist for some fans of historic saga
As the next chapter for a famous company promises a windfall to shareholders, some feel its passing into foreign hands is a sad day for UK shipping, writes Janet Porter
Wednesday February 15 2006

TWO decades ago, Jeffrey Sterling emerged victorious from a hard-fought battle with arch rival Nigel Broackes of Trafalgar House for control of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

That wrestle for one of the most famous names in shipping transfixed Britain?s business leaders and was a defining moment for the country?s maritime industry as P&O went on to develop into a truly global brand.

So it was fitting that Lord Sterling (below) was present for the final chapter of the era he had shaped as an even more epic struggle for ownership of P&O eventually came to an end on Monday afternoon.

Maritime historians may never put the Battle of Wembley in the same league as the Battle of Trafalgar, but the outcome will nevertheless reverberate in the UK and further afield for decades to come.

London?s position as one of the world?s premier maritime hubs was thrown into question in a shabby corner of northwest London when shareholders gave their overwhelming consent for a takeover bid from a foreign buyer.

For the first time, the capital does not have a UK-owned global shipping company at the heart of its maritime community, and opinion is divided about how much this may matter as competitors around the world aim to provide the same sort of maritime services offered by London-based shipbrokers, bankers lawyers, insurers, surveyors and other professions.

Globalisation is hitting every sector of the shipping industry, and this time round it was not a domestic contest between a pair of homegrown entrepreneurs for P&O, but a head-to-head confrontation between two rich and powerful city states both determined to punch way above their weight.

For the past three months, the future of P&O has been the main topic of conversation not just in shipping circles but the broader business world as stock market analysts, fund managers and institutional investors rapidly revised their opinions of just how much ports are worth. For what is being paid for P&O, whose principal assets are terminals and ferries, is truly phenomenal.

The drama began when Dubai?s restructured DP World first made an approach to P&O in late November, with an offer of 443 pence a share that valued the group at £3.3bn ($5.6bn). The bid price compared with a low point at one stage last year of 263 pence.

Dubai?s move raised the immediate spectre of a counter-bid, with the names of most of the industry majors being tossed around. In the end, it was Singapore?s PSA Corp that stepped in with a higher offer of 470 pence per share.

Few were surprised when DP World trumped PSA with an offer of 520 pence ? neither were many eyebrows raised when PSA decided enough was enough and backed out late last week.

By that time the numbers on the table were so incredible that P&O had seen its value rise by £1.6bn in the space of a few weeks from the level at which shares were changing hands before the bidding war erupted.

When Lord Sterling first took charge of P&O in the mid-1980s, ports barely featured in the company?s thinking. At that stage, it operated cruise and cargo ships, ran ferry services, and had a large property portfolio. Its terminals division was managed from Australia and largely left to its own devices.

Over the following decade, P&O concentrated on expanding its passenger and container shipping activities, and developing land transport and logistics services. Ports were still something of a backwater as far as head office was concerned. But as P&O?s collection of business interests grew, so the City became increasingly convinced that the sum of the parts was worth more than the whole, and started to press for the release of shareholder value through asset sales.

The de-merger of the cruise division was the start of a process that has continued to this day. Some, including a fair number of loyal shareholders, still feel very bitter about what they see as the break-up of a great company by the moneymen. There are those within P&O who would agree, but not everyone blames the financial markets for what has happened over the past decade. Quite the reverse, according to one line of thinking. P&O as a worldclass shipping conglomerate could have been saved if management had acted differently, critics argue. The City could have been won round if the board had managed to exploit the synergies between its various business divisions, claim opponents of the sell-off policy.

Ironically, the day that shareholders accepted the DP World offer that will transfer P&O?s ownership out of the UK for the first time in its history was the very same day that the P&O name vanished from the liner shipping trades after 170 years as one of the industry leaders.

AP Moller-Maersk?s acquisition of P&O Nedlloyd last year was followed by a six month phase-in that was completed at the weekend. Although the Nedlloyd name may continue to be used for some activities, Maersk did not acquire the rights to the P&O name and has now absorbed the former Anglo-Dutch container line into re-branded Maersk Line.

DP World will continue to use the P&O name, and in many ways, much will remain the same. Having only finally known for sure last Friday that he had won one of the most high-stake takeover battles in the history of corporate shipping, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem (above) has yet to decide on the details of how DP World and P&O will be consolidated.

But the two sides began talking on Monday morning ahead of the shareholder meeting, and the first details should be announced very soon, he told Lloyd?s List. P&O?s chief executive Robert Woods will stay on to help with the integration process.

But no matter what the size of their windfall, many individual shareholders - mostly elderly - feel terribly let down by the board and dreadfully sorry that P&O will no longer be in UK hands. They were clearly not in it for the money.

P&O chairman Sir John Parker tried to explain that P&O was already operating in the global economy, with terminals in 19 countries and the UK accounting for only 4% of profits from port activities.

?P&O should not be on the bandwagon of protectionism,? Sir John told shareholders in response to pleas for the government to intervene and stop the company from being sold overseas.

Lord Sterling, while admitting to mixed feelings about the sale, also explained to unhappy shareholders that, although headquartered in London, P&O was a global business.

But their words did little to placate shareholder dissidents led by Capt David Hawker, well known to successive P&O boards over the years.

?As an Irishman, I am astounded by the lack of patriotism in Britain,? he thundered to rounds of applause from the couple of hundred shareholders who had made their way to the Wembley Conference Centre.

He accused the City of ?failing to learn the lessons of history? and reminded his audience that ?seafarers built the British Empire?.

If foreigners were prepared to pay so much for P&O, ?then it must be a good company worth hanging on to,? he continued.

Such views are also widespread within P&O, with Lloyd?s List receiving a large number of letters from employees around the world deeply distressed about how the company has been stripped of many of its corporate jewels over the years and finally sold off to the highest bidder.

But despite such misgivings, the outcome of the shareholder vote was never in the slightest doubt, with more than 99% accepting the offer and the takeover now scheduled to be completed within a month.

In the end, the deciding vote on the future of one of the great names of British shipping was something of an anti-climax, with a succession of meeting culminating in the EGM all over within three hours.

This is not the end of P&O. The name and the business will live on, albeit under different owners.

But for many loyal and patriotic shareholders who have held P&O stock for many years and for a variety of reasons not connected with making a fast profit, February 13, 2006 was a day of sadness and regret.
Go to the top of the page
+

13 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: