Power to the People...Dubai Deal Dead!!!

[memyselfI]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html

Kudos to the bi-partisan effort to shock the monkey... :clap:

[Baby Lee]

Hooray for simpletons!!!!

[jAZ]

Hooray for simpletons!!!!
I believe that was Karl Rove's approach to the 2004 election.

[Braincase]

Looks like Bush was going to veto... but now the UAE company that owns the whole Dubai port management company is turning the project over to an American company... anybody wanna make a wild guess who the parent company of the American owned company is going to be.... Buehler?

[HC_Chief]

OH NO, NOT HALIBURTON!?!?!?!?!

{Dramatic chord}!
*gasp*
*swoon*

[Braincase]

OH NO, NOT HALIBURTON!?!?!?!?!

{Dramatic chord}!
*gasp*
*swoon*

I frankly have no idea... but I do know which way the wind blows.

[BIG_DADDY]

This is how ****ing stupid Duhnise is. If we had any form of terrorist anything go through after the Debai deal went down it would be Bush's ass and with it anything that is left of Americas confidence in the Republican party. Even the bloody boxes that are the Democratic party couldn't help but come into power after that. As we all know it would be well worth it to

[HC_Chief]

In all seriousness, it was good of the UAE to take the high road in attempts to avoid animous (even though anyone with at least an eigth of a brain knows this "story" was nothing more than demagoguery, bloviation, and posturing).

I wouldn't be surprised to hear later that the "US Interest" that takes over management of the business of the reports has heavy investment on behalf of UAE; ie a "shell" corporation or subsidiary thereof.

[patteeu]

This looks like great news for those who would rather see Bush with egg on his face than see us prevail in the GWoT and win the hearts and minds of the Arab Middle East.

[HC_Chief]

This looks like great news for those who would rather see Bush with egg on his face than see us prevail in the GWoT and win the hearts and minds of the Arab Middle East.

I disagree. Dubai Ports World pulled their contract bid stating "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity".

Looks to me DPW took the high road (and probably found a backdoor to the deal).

This whole mess doesn't look "good" for anyone. It was obvious the story was rhetoric and wind... typical politics of late. It very well <i>could</i> have been a bad deal - an insult to a regional ally, but it appears to have been difused w/o insult (thank God).

At least we won't have to hear about it any more :thumb:
Of course I'm sure some politicians will still try to take credit for it. The idiots will believe them; D.C. will keep blowing, etc.

[patteeu]

I disagree. Dubai Ports World pulled their contract bid stating "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity".

Looks to me DPW took the high road (and probably found a backdoor to the deal).

This whole mess doesn't look "good" for anyone. It was obvious the story was rhetoric and wind... typical politics of late. It very well <i>could</i> have been a bad deal - an insult to a regional ally, but it appears to have been difused w/o insult (thank God).

At least we won't have to hear about it any more :thumb:
Of course I'm sure some politicians will still try to take credit for it. The idiots will believe them; D.C. will keep blowing, etc.

It's possible that DP World is satisfied with this fallback position, but if there isn't some hidden payoff involved and if this fallback position was just as desireable to them, they would have done it a while ago.

Personally, I hope there has been some kind of backdoor deal here to mitigate the damage.

[Cochise]

So, was the security aspect of the ports' operation going to change over? Who would have been handling it instead of US Customs, the border patrol, dept. of homeland security, etc.?

[HC_Chief]

It's possible that DP World is satisfied with this fallback position, but if there isn't some hidden payoff involved and if this fallback position was just as desireable to them, they would have done it a while ago.

Personally, I hope there has been some kind of backdoor deal here to mitigate the damage.

Well, the sale to them was finalized last year at the start of Q4. It wasn't until just recently that it became an "issue", therefore I suspect a scramble over the past few weeks to secure the "fallback position" as you succinctly put it ;)

The DPW statement on the sale to a U.S. company was as cordial as I have seen, which made me immediately think "ahh, they have a backdoor". Or perhaps I'm just a cynic? :D

[HC_Chief]

So, was the security aspect of the ports' operation going to change over? Who would have been handling it instead of US Customs, the border patrol, dept. of homeland security, etc.?

No

The whole "deal" was sale of the management at the top business level; i.e. ownership of management business. The workers would not change, so the union had no beef. The security would not change, so it's not a security issue; and no, DPW would not garner "intimate knowlege of our security mechanisms" - the CG would still have full control and DPW would have to comply with whatever rules they instituted; including changes to said policies. The DPW holdings would NOT include soil, including the ports or off shore.

The whole deal was a load of latent anti-ME racism fanned by D.C. hot wind. The hilarious bit in all of this is the loonies jumped all over it... they actually partook in what they supposedly resent with the very fibre of their being. Hypocrisy? In this day & age? Say it ain't so.

[Cochise]

No

The whole "deal" was sale of the management at the top business level; i.e. ownership of management business. The workers would not change, so the union had no beef. The security would not change, so it's not a security issue; and no, DPW would not garner "intimate knowlege of our security mechanisms" - the CG would still have full control and DPW would have to comply with whatever rules they instituted; including changes to said policies. The DPW holdings would NOT include soil, including the ports or off shore.

Hmm. Sounds to me like the signature on the paychecks was changing but little else.

I wonder what would happen if my company rejected an Arab guy from being a security guard because they didn't want any Arabs working at the front desk.

[Baby Lee]

Hmm. Sounds to me like the signature on the paychecks was changing but little else.

I wonder what would happen if my company rejected an Arab guy from being a security guard because they didn't want any Arabs working at the front desk.
Depends on if George Bush picked the guy, though it's apparently not relevant that George didn't pick this deal.

[Ultra Peanut]

Xenophobia, yay!

[HC_Chief]

Hmm. Sounds to me like the signature on the paychecks was changing but little else.

That was the gist of it, from everything I read and heard on the subject (other than the typical politico BS). Looked to me like a legit business deal by a company that is in the business of part management. Not only in the business, but one of the best in the world.

The ONLY arguement against the deal that held water for me was the fact that DPW is a state-owned entity; a state that refuses to recognize Israel. That still does not warrant congressional action to block the deal.

[banyon]

This looks like great news for those who would rather see Bush with egg on his face than see us prevail in the GWoT and win the hearts and minds of the Arab Middle East.

great. I guess you won't be supporting any of the 62 congressmen that voted to block the deal then?

Guess you're just left with Jim Moran (D) - Va. and Jim Kolbe (R) - Az., the only "true patriots" left.

[Baby Lee]

great. I guess you won't be supporting any of the 62 congressmen that voted to block the deal then?
Just the periodic reminder that the people who run the world are separated by less IQ points from the guy who bagged your fries for lunch than you'd like to think.

[banyon]

Just the periodic reminder that the people who run the world are seperating by less IQ points from the guy who bagged your fries for lunch than you'd like to think.

Nice "stupid" quip, but where were you when we were actually discussing the substantive details of the deal? I maintain that there are legitimate reasons to oppose handing over port operations to a country with Al-Qaeda ties.

[Baby Lee]

Nice "stupid" quip, but where were you when we were actually discussing the substantive details of the deal? I maintain that there are legitimate reasons to oppose handing over port operations to a country with Al-Qaeda ties.
We know what you maintain.

[banyon]

We know what you maintain.

My bad. I won't mistake you for someone who engages in reasoned debate again.

[Cochise]

My bad. I won't mistake you for someone who engages in reasoned debate again.

Capability and desire are two things that should not be confused.

[Duck Dog]

I hope Haliburton takes over. Their stock would sore through the roof plus every limp wristed leftwingtard would really get their kotex's bunched up.

Talk about win win.

[memyselfI]

That was the gist of it, from everything I read and heard on the subject (other than the typical politico BS). Looked to me like a legit business deal by a company that is in the business of part management. Not only in the business, but one of the best in the world.

The ONLY arguement against the deal that held water for me was the fact that DPW is a state-owned entity; a state that refuses to recognize Israel. That still does not warrant congressional action to block the deal.

Not only did they refuse to recognize Israel but they were the only government to officially recognize the Taliban. :shake: :rolleyes: :harumph:

[banyon]

Not only did they refuse to recognize Israel but they were the only government to officially recognize the Taliban. :shake: :rolleyes: :harumph:


1/3:Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

[memyselfI]

1/3:Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[HC_Chief]

1/3:Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

All three of those countries have been contradictory in terms of the WoT. On one hand they have been great allies - arresting and <i>killing</i> (also providing logistical support, which is highly underrated) the murdering POS we are facing, but on the other hand have been the wellspring from which many of the nutball killers have arisen.

Congressional action against this deal could very well have resulted in insult to one of our allies - which would be bad, due to the very precarious aforementioned balance. We want them to <i>continue</i> to help us; we certainly do not need to alienate them just so some scumbag politician can get re-elected.

[Baby Lee]

My bad. I won't mistake you for someone who engages in reasoned debate again.
No, no, by all means, lets rehash again your rainbow of reasons that you 'maintain' that there might be 'justification' in opposing the deal.

My favorite rhetorical strategem;
1. shower the debate in figures and speculation and hypotheses ad infinitum, until people are tired of explaining that none of the minutiae volleyed has had no effect on the central pillars of the opposing argument.
2. Come back at a later time, pretending that the speculation and hypotheses rejected in the previous discussion are now the accepted wisdom on the issue.
3. When people finally bow out of the endless loop, claim victory because people can't 'engage in reasoned debate.'

[memyselfI]

All three of those countries have been contradictory in terms of the WoT. On one hand they have been great allies - arresting and <i>killing</i> (also providing logistical support, which is highly underrated) the murdering POS we are facing, but on the other hand have been the wellspring from which many of the nutball killers have arisen.

Congressional action against this deal could very well have resulted in insult to one of our allies - which would be bad, due to the very precarious aforementioned balance. We want them to <i>continue</i> to help us; we certainly do not need to alienate them just so some scumbag politician can get re-elected.

DUHbya is an idiot. I mean, his holding hands with the folks in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. For him to think that one of these three countries would be welcomed to buy access to our country. ROFL

[Baby Lee]

DUHbya is an idiot. I mean, his holding hands with the folks in Saudi Arabia is bad enough. For him to think that one of these three countries would be welcomed to buy access to our country. ROFL
And what does the fact that you appear under the impression that this deal was Bush's doing say about your intelligence?

[Baby Lee]

Kudos to the bi-partisan effort to shock the monkey... :clap:
http://wbli.com/images/morningshow/special_ed.jpg
Yay! 'American Entity" is all I need to know. Yay! That's inherently better than 'vetted UAE company.' Yay! But I'm not xenophobic. Yay!!!!

Oh! And it's not just all about the Bush hate, however misguided. Yay!!!

[redbrian]

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060309&cat=frontpage&st=frontpageap20060309_1437&src=abc

"The firm finalized its $6.8 billion purchase Thursday of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

Despite the furor, the company's U.S. operations were never the most prized part of the global transaction. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase."

The US terminals were less than 10% of the total package, of Oriental Steam.

Now it will be fun to see what US company is going to step up and overpay for that 10% as DP world will not sell that part for less than it paid.

Also it should be noted that on of DP worlds biggest customers happens to be the US Navy, they have been loading US ships for years, if they had wanted to use their position in the shipping industry it would have been done a long time ago.

Frankly I think these terminals will be in worse shape after an inept unqualified "US sanctioned" company tries to take over these operations.

[memyselfI]

http://wbli.com/images/morningshow/special_ed.jpg
Yay! 'American Entity" is all I need to know. Yay! That's inherently better than 'vetted UAE company.' Yay! But I'm not xenophobic. Yay!!!!

Oh! And it's not just all about the Bush hate, however misguided. Yay!!!


Likewise, anything the President does is fine by me...

http://www.vandykestaxidermy.com/images/products/30300001-lg.jpg

[alnorth]

So, essentially the US part of the deal was a minor throw-in worth less than 10% of the transaction, with the more desirable part being operation of asian ports.

Now, some "american interest", in an industry where the US virtually has no presence, will probably overpay for the deal and manage the ports with less efficiency, netting DPW a nice profit. Hooray for xenophobia and latent racism!

[banyon]

I sure hope you guys are enjoying bashing your straw man of racism.

[redbrian]

So, essentially the US part of the deal was a minor throw-in worth less than 10% of the transaction, with the more desirable part being operation of asian ports.

Now, some "american interest", in an industry where the US virtually has no presence, will probably overpay for the deal and manage the ports with less efficiency, netting DPW a nice profit. Hooray for xenophobia and latent racism!

That's my take on the deal, DP comes out of this deal very sweet, hell who would want to put up with all the crap of running these terminals in the US?

[Baby Lee]

Likewise, anything the President does is fine by me...

http://www.vandykestaxidermy.com/images/products/30300001-lg.jpg
I'll just quote this post before you get buyer's remorse on your misunderstanding of what Bush 'did' in this matter.

[alnorth]

That's my take on the deal, DP comes out of this deal very sweet, hell who would want to put up with all the crap of running these terminals in the US?

The biggest port operator in the world refuses to do business in the US because all the hassles they would have to go through would not be worth it.

Apparently DPW was mostly interested in the Asian ports, they were pretty much forced into taking the US ports as well. They arent going to just throw away the US ports at a few hundred million dollar loss, thats still real money, but they gave up on this issue so easily that it seems to me that as long as they can make some money out of the deal, they'd sooner be rid of the US ports and operate the only part of the world that they really wanted.

[Adept Havelock]

I'm amused by the number of "conservatives" that have suddenly rejected classical conservatism and decided it's a good thing to support state owned companies.

Whatever happened to the conservative ideals of getting govt. out of the boardroom? Free enterprise? The Private sector?

Not as important as pretending that the opposition is all about racism, apparently. The WH tried the same sad talking points. ROFL

Are our ports/borders secure now? No way in hell. Is it a step in the right direction? IMO, Absolutely.

[alnorth]

I'm amused by the number of "conservatives" that believe it's a good thing to support state owned companies.

Whatever happened to getting govt. out of the boardroom? Free enterprise? The Private sector?

Government-owned companies in our society are generally less efficient and desirable. (I'm looking right at you, USPS) We dont, and shouldnt, give a rat's ass about how other countries do their own business. When foreign nations dabble in business, it tends to give us a competitive edge in industries where we feel it is worth competing in.

Are our ports/borders secure now? No way in hell. Is it a step in the right direction? IMO, Absolutely.

Would adopting or rejecting this deal have any impact in any way, shape, or form on our port security? Your side has yet to prove that this had any relevance to security. To the contrary, DPW's action today, giving up on the issue so easily pretty much signaled clear as a bell that this was a simple business deal with absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever.

If the UAE cancels Boeing's biggest contract leading to widespread layoffs, blocks our military from their ports, and refuses to assist in the WoT in retribution for this very public insult, thats all on you guys now. (as well as a truckload of gutless Republicans)

This was simple political fear from the right, and political opportunism reeking of hypocracy from the left, nothing more.

[Adept Havelock]

This was simple political fear from the right, and political opportunism reeking of hypocracy from the left, nothing more.

That's one opinion. Everybody's got one, just like....

We dont, and shouldnt, give a rat's ass about how other countries do their own business.

Interesting position for a conservative. So you have no problem with China using slave labor to produce cheap products to dump on the US? You have no problem with foreign companies conducting unfair business practices like the Japanese tariffs on US products so our trade imbalance grows? My...classical conservatism has changed over the years. Goldwater wouldn't recognize it for certain.


DPW's action today, giving up on the issue so easily pretty much signaled clear as a bell that this was a simple business deal with absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever.

Sure. They gave up easily...shortly after the WH was presented with the facts that Congress had the votes to kill the deal and quite likely override a veto. :rolleyes:

As for "malicious intent", I for one wasn't worried about the corporation itself having a malicious intent. My concern was allowing a company owned outright by a foreign nation to purchase control of any US assets. I'd oppose any deal like that, ports or not. I'm also pretty certain that my position is more in line with classical conservatism than yours.

Also, I had a concern that allowing a foreign-nation owned company outright control of our busiest ports was a security risk we didn't have to take. I don't know about you, but unnecessary risks in time of war strike me as foolish, to say the least.


If the UAE cancels Boeing's biggest contract leading to widespread layoffs, blocks our military from their ports, and refuses to assist in the WoT in retribution for this very public insult, thats all on you guys now. (as well as a truckload of gutless Republicans)

If it's really about encouraging our allies, why can't Private sector US investment in the UAE, or favorable trade concessions take the place of this ill-conceived notion?

As for the so-called "insult", keep trying to spin this decision as racist. It's worked so well for your side. ROFL

[alnorth]

Interesting position for a conservative. So you have no problem with China using slave labor to produce cheap products to dump on the US? You have no problem with foreign companies conducting unfair business practices like the Japanese tariffs on US products so our trade imbalance grows? My...classical conservatism has changed over the years. Goldwater wouldn't recognize it for certain.

Allow me to rephrase that. We shouldnt care if another nation owns a company, just in and of itself. Your various scenarios are not an inevitable conclusion from the starting point of a nation owning a company, thousands of companies we compete against are owned by states. We tend to do better in competition when a foreign government tries, since they dont usually do as well as a private foreign owner.

My concern was allowing a company owned outright by a foreign nation to purchase control of any US assets. I'd oppose any deal like that, ports or not. I'm also pretty certain that my position is more in line with classical conservatism than yours.

Buchanan, with all his protectionist lunacy claims to be a pure conservative as well. We dont seem to have a problem with the British, Singapore, and freakin red China operating our ports.

If it's really about encouraging our allies, why can't Private sector US investment in the UAE, or favorable trade concessions take the place of this ill-conceived notion?

This is already occuring, and has for some time. This fiasco threatens to damage or sunder those ties.

As for the so-called "insult", keep trying to spin this decision as racist. It's worked so well for your side. ROFL

I dont necessarily believe the left is racist here, they are jumping on a political opportunity and to hell with their previous political beliefs.

However, their stance sure as hell seems racist to the outside world, and the UAE has already signaled that this will damage relations regardless of what diplomacy requires them to say in public. "We'll let Chinese companies run our ports, but not you, because everybody knows that you A-rabs are a gonna blow us up!"

[redbrian]

That's one opinion. Everybody's got one, just like....


Interesting position for a conservative. So you have no problem with China using slave labor to produce cheap products to dump on the US? You have no problem with foreign companies conducting unfair business practices like the Japanese tariffs on US products so our trade imbalance grows? My...classical conservatism has changed over the years. Goldwater wouldn't recognize it for certain.



Sure. They gave up easily...shortly after the WH was presented with the facts that Congress had the votes to kill the deal and quite likely override a veto. :rolleyes:

As for "malicious intent", I for one wasn't worried about the corporation itself having a malicious intent. My concern was allowing a company owned outright by a foreign nation to purchase control of any US assets. I'd oppose any deal like that, ports or not. I'm also pretty certain that my position is more in line with classical conservatism than yours.

Also, I had a concern that allowing a foreign-nation owned company outright control of our busiest ports was a security risk we didn't have to take. I don't know about you, but unnecessary risks in time of war strike me as foolish, to say the least



If this had not been an election year, I doubt if you would have seen so much made of so little by both sides.

Stupidity and manipulation of same knows no political boundaries.

The politicians on both sides of the isle have played to their constituent’s xenophobia, isolationism and fears very nicely.

If a company is owned by a government we should not do business with them?

This is a rather quaint and naive notion.

If you feel this way I suggest you get a bike as most oil produced in this world is done so through government owned entities.

Slave labor in China that should be a job for the unions of the world, or have they lost their nerve and only want to suck on the tit of the union dues.

You do know that for several years DB World has had a large contract to load and supply US Navel ships?

[Chiefs Express]

I know, the libs would rather have China control the ports ala Clinton.

[redbrian]

I know, the libs would rather have China control the ports ala Clinton.

China already controls several terminals in the US.

[Chiefs Express]

China already controls several terminals in the US.

Well...duh! Where is the outrage there? I think China poses more of a threat than most of us might realize.

[Adept Havelock]

Buchanan, with all his protectionist lunacy claims to be a pure conservative as well. We dont seem to have a problem with the British, Singapore, and freakin red China operating our ports.

We? Mouse in your pocket? What part of my statement "any deal like this" do you not comprehend? I oppose any foreign control of our ports or national assets.


This is already occuring, and has for some time. This fiasco threatens to damage or sunder those ties.

To you, a fiasco. To me, responsible behaivor. As another poster might say, Chicken Little much?



I dont necessarily believe the left is racist here, they are jumping on a political opportunity and to hell with their previous political beliefs.

However, their stance sure as hell seems racist to the outside world, and the UAE has already signaled that this will damage relations regardless of what diplomacy requires them to say in public. "We'll let Chinese companies run our ports, but not you, because everybody knows that you A-rabs are a gonna blow us up!"

Again, nice attempt at race-bating. Keep it up. ROFL

I still believe that any "damage" can be ameliorated by enhancing responsible trade concessions, and foreign aid.

This is going in circles...good night.

[Adept Havelock]

If this had not been an election year, I doubt if you would have seen so much made of so little by both sides.

While I wholeheartedly dismiss your allegation of it being a "little" matter, I couldn't agree more with your first point. Luckily for this nation, it is an election year. ROFL

Stupidity and manipulation of same knows no political boundaries.
Agreed. Exhibit A: George W. Bush. Exhibit B: John Kerry

If a company is owned by a government we should not do business with them?
This is a rather quaint and naive notion.

Hey, it's my opinion. If you think it's "quaint or naive" :shrug:

If you feel this way I suggest you get a bike as most oil produced in this world is done so through government owned entities. .

I'd rather do something a bit more practical. While I own and ride a bike, I drive a hybrid, and do all I can to encourage and donate to support alternate energy sources.

Slave labor in China that should be a job for the unions of the world, or have they lost their nerve and only want to suck on the tit of the union dues.


Unions should be responsible for conducting foreign policy with a Nuclear Power independent of the US government? A curious position for a conservative, to say the least. Or was it just a pointless cheap shot (not that I'm above them ;) )?


You do know that for several years DB World has had a large contract to load and supply US Navel ships?


Navel is your belly button. Naval has to do with ships at sea.

I recently became aware of it, and wrote several letters to my congresscritters protesting it, as I wholeheartedly oppose it.

Your point?

As I said above, this is pointless and going in circles. Good Night, and Good Luck.

[alnorth]

Again, nice attempt at race-bating. Keep it up. ROFL

I still believe that any "damage" can be ameliorated by enhancing responsible trade concessions, and foreign aid.

This is going in circles...good night.

Foreign aid? The UAE is one of the most Westernised Capitalist Middle-Eastern countries in the world and one of the last tourist destinations in the area that is still fairly safe for foreign visitors. We arent dealing with an impoverished nation. They already have many significant economic ties with the US, but frankly they do not need us. They can just as easily do business with our competitors, and they really dont have to allow their nation to be the #1 port of choice in the region for our military.

Dubai threatens to hit back (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html)

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.

...

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”

Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added.

During the hearing, he warned about the implications of a negative decision on the ports deal: “So obviously it would have some effect on us, and I’d not care to quantify that, because I don’t have the facts to quantify it. It would certainly have an effect on us.”

[redbrian]

[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]

"I'd rather do something a bit more practical. While I own and ride a bike, I drive a hybrid, and do all I can to encourage and donate to support alternate energy sources."

Still burns a lot of oil produced by government run companies, also government subsidized technology.

"Unions should be responsible for conducting foreign policy with a Nuclear Power independent of the US government? A curious position for a conservative, to say the least. Or was it just a pointless cheap shot (not that I'm above them ;) )?"

More of a realist instead of a die in the wool “conservative”, and yes it was a cheap shot (although I do believe the unions would do more good overseas than they currently do here in the states (killing two birds with one stone).

"I recently became aware of it, and wrote several letters to my congresscritters protesting it, as I wholeheartedly oppose it."

So let’s wrap our minds around this thought.

You believe only “real” American companies run by “real” Americans should control American terminals located at American ports.

And if we are to follow your logic here, only “real” American companies should control foreign terminals which supply US ships.

A bit hypocritical or do you have another idea on how to stock our ships at overseas terminals?

Or are you just against Dubai stocking our ships?

"Your point?"

My point is very simple, if the “evil” folks in Dubai had wanted to use DB World to attack the US they would have already done it, via US Naval ships.

[patteeu]

great. I guess you won't be supporting any of the 62 congressmen that voted to block the deal then?

Guess you're just left with Jim Moran (D) - Va. and Jim Kolbe (R) - Az., the only "true patriots" left.

Nah, I think there are people who truly believe that, on balance, the deal was a threat to national security (e.g. Charles Krauthammer, you, Vlad). I don't see the thread starter as one of those people though.

I won't be supporting Peter King for anything, but for the most part, I can overlook this vote in a way that I can't overlook Lieberman's vote to acquit Bill Clinton or John McCain's war against big tobacco and his sponsorship of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.

[patteeu]

I'm amused by the number of "conservatives" that have suddenly rejected classical conservatism and decided it's a good thing to support state owned companies.

Whatever happened to the conservative ideals of getting govt. out of the boardroom? Free enterprise? The Private sector?

Not as important as pretending that the opposition is all about racism, apparently. The WH tried the same sad talking points. ROFL

Are our ports/borders secure now? No way in hell. Is it a step in the right direction? IMO, Absolutely.

If a company is owned by one man, what difference does it make whether he is a private person or the ruler of a tiny nation? This is not a nationalized industry that is run by bureaucrats and subsidized by taxpayers. Maybe you don't understand conservative ideals all that well.

[Mr. Kotter]

To me, this was kind of a no-brainer. The administration should have passed this by a focus group weeks ago, to test it....for them not to anticipate the possible objections and "fall-out" from this, lends credence to some of the critics charges they are either out of touch, or arrogant--or both.

(Yes, dickweeds....it's a non "Bush apologist" moment; mark your calendars, hags.)

[WoodDraw]

When you base your entire Presidency over fear of terrorism, don't be shocked when people respond. It was Bush's own arrogance that doomed this deal. He didn't do the mandatory 45 day review and then was shocked - shocked! - when people didn't trust his decision to turn the ports over to a major arab country with ties to 9/11. You know, the same 9/11 he makes sure to mention in every speach. I'm still not convinced there was anything wrong with it, but so it goes. It's just one of the many consequences of the post-9/11 world...

[Mr. Kotter]

When you base your entire Presidency over fear of terrorism, don't be shocked when people respond. It was Bush's own arrogance that doomed this deal. He didn't do the mandatory 45 day review and then was shocked - shocked! - when people didn't trust his decision to turn the ports over to a major arab country with ties to 9/11. You know, the same 9/11 he makes sure to mention in every speach. I'm still not convinced there was anything wrong with it, but so it goes. It's just one of the many consequences of the post-9/11 world...

Yup; this one is deserving of the derision it's receiving.... :shake:

[|Zach|]

Its cool.

No really.

Trust us.

[patteeu]

When you base your entire Presidency over fear of terrorism, don't be shocked when people respond. It was Bush's own arrogance that doomed this deal. He didn't do the mandatory 45 day review and then was shocked - shocked! - when people didn't trust his decision to turn the ports over to a major arab country with ties to 9/11. You know, the same 9/11 he makes sure to mention in every speach. I'm still not convinced there was anything wrong with it, but so it goes. It's just one of the many consequences of the post-9/11 world...

The US and Germany also had "ties to 9/11." Should we quit doing business with them?

I'd really like to hear someone explain these "ties to 9/11" that I keep hearing people mention. I've read a lot about this deal, but I haven't read anything about these ties that makes them rise above the level of the ties that both the US and Germany had with the hijackers in any substantial way.

[Mr. Kotter]

The US and Germany also had "ties to 9/11." Should we quit doing business with them?

I'd really like to hear someone explain these "ties to 9/11" that I keep hearing people mention. I've read a lot about this deal, but I haven't read anything about these ties that makes them rise above the level of the ties that both the US and Germany had with the hijackers in any substantial way.

Honestly, you and I and most, know the reason: they are Arabs.

And some in their country, and even government, have had some empathy, if not close ties, with terrorists, including Al Queada....

Like it or not, Congress is reflecting that honest, if ugly, reality.

[WoodDraw]

Honestly, you and I and most, know the reason: they are Arabs.


Yeah, exactly. I mean what the hell do you think it means? Half this country thinks Iraq has "ties" to 9/11. Why? Do you think the public just developed these views on their own? We live in the wonderful black and white post-9/11 world where everything is so simple. People see the Middle East as one giant country filled with these evil, jealous terrorists who hate our way of life and would like to kill us. What is the next logical step then when one of them tries to take over our ports? It's simple word association. It doesn't take very long to get from United Arab Emerates to 9/11, and when that has been hammered into our political culture for the past five years what do you think will happen? If you don't want this reaction at home then stop with the half assed foreign policy abroad.

[Adept Havelock]

redbrian-

I'm aware a hybrid still uses oil, and is a subsidised technology. Do you live your life 100% in accordance with your political ideals? Or do you simply do the best you can considering the way our society is structured?

I'm sorry. I was unaware you were the only human being out of 6 billion+ that was never the least bit hypocritical. [/sarcasm]

alnorth-

I know the economic status of the UAE. I am also aware that foreign aid isn't necessarily limited to grain for poor nations. It can also take the form of technology and trade concessions.
I'm also aware a true western society economy is better off doing business with the US than without. If the UAE wants to cut off their nose to spite their face because of US security and economic concerns, so be it. I certainly won't cry about it like I've got sand in...what was it called...a mangina. ;)

As for your proof of "damage", Two anon. sources in "The Hill" isn't much of a case, IMO.

UAE starts doing something overt, I'll then concede your point. Until then, it's only an opinion.


As for "malicious intent", I for one wasn't worried about the corporation itself having a malicious intent. My concern was allowing a company owned outright by a foreign nation to purchase control of any US assets. I'd oppose any deal like that, ports or not. I'm also pretty certain that my position is more in line with classical conservatism than yours.

Also, I had a concern that allowing a foreign-nation owned company outright control of our busiest ports was a security risk we didn't have to take. I don't know about you, but unnecessary risks in time of war strike me as foolish, to say the least.



My point is very simple, if the “evil” folks in Dubai had wanted to use DB World to attack the US they would have already done it, via US Naval ships


As I said above, this is pointless and going in circles. Good Night, and Good Luck.

:rolleyes:

[the Talking Can]

I'd really like to hear someone explain these "ties to 9/11" that I keep hearing people mention.

the irony is exploding my head....

we started a phony war over fake "ties to 9/11"....and now you ask the question....republicans are awesome....really awesome...

the death of 1,000's....not causing you to reflect

the death of a business deal..."I demand answers!"

[Ugly Duck]

Just the periodic reminder that the people who run the world are separated by less IQ points from the guy who bagged your fries for lunch than you'd like to think.FINALLY I'm making some headway around here! Persistance pays off...

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/bush_gollum.jpg

[redbrian]

Just heard this on NPR this morning, looks like we were all counting our chickens before they were hatched.

DP World never stated that they were going to sell the contracts, they may set up a US owned subsidiary for these contracts.

Get out your tin foil hats were in for a bumpy ride.

[Chiefs Express]

Yeah, exactly. I mean what the hell do you think it means? Half this country thinks Iraq has "ties" to 9/11. Why? Do you think the public just developed these views on their own? We live in the wonderful black and white post-9/11 world where everything is so simple. People see the Middle East as one giant country filled with these evil, jealous terrorists who hate our way of life and would like to kill us. What is the next logical step then when one of them tries to take over our ports? It's simple word association. It doesn't take very long to get from United Arab Emerates to 9/11, and when that has been hammered into our political culture for the past five years what do you think will happen? If you don't want this reaction at home then stop with the half assed foreign policy abroad.

I don't necessarily think that, but what proof do you have that tere are no ties?

[patteeu]

the irony is exploding my head....

we started a phony war over fake "ties to 9/11"....and now you ask the question....republicans are awesome....really awesome...

the death of 1,000's....not causing you to reflect

the death of a business deal..."I demand answers!"

Your ability to be confused never ceases to amaze me. The only people I ever heard talk about Iraq's "ties to 9/11" were people like you falsely claiming that the administration said there were some.

[alnorth]

When you base your entire Presidency over fear of terrorism, don't be shocked when people respond. It was Bush's own arrogance that doomed this deal. He didn't do the mandatory 45 day review and then was shocked - shocked! - when people didn't trust his decision to turn the ports over to a major arab country with ties to 9/11. You know, the same 9/11 he makes sure to mention in every speach. I'm still not convinced there was anything wrong with it, but so it goes. It's just one of the many consequences of the post-9/11 world...

I cant find anything here to disagree with. Honestly, Bush did whip that fear of terrorism horse to death to gain every ounce of political benefit possible for the GOP in 2002 and 2004. This probably should have been predictable as a result.

[banyon]

No, no, by all means, lets rehash again your rainbow of reasons that you 'maintain' that there might be 'justification' in opposing the deal.


Boy you've got my number. I learned my tricks from Protagoras.

So I'll use the infamous trick of sophistry known as "I'm Rubber you're Glue..."

My favorite rhetorical strategem;
1. shower the debate in figures and speculation and hypotheses ad infinitum, until people are tired of explaining that none of the minutiae volleyed has had no effect on the central pillars of the opposing argument.
2. Come back at a later time, pretending that the speculation and hypotheses rejected in the previous discussion are now the accepted wisdom on the issue.
3. When people finally bow out of the endless loop, claim victory because people can't 'engage in reasoned debate.'

Um, by all means, let's pretend that there wasn't an actual debate and that there weren't any legitimate points made in objection to the deal. Let's also pretend that supporters of the deal didn't admit that there were valid reasons to be against the deal.

Let's then come back in after the debate is done, having not participated, and then do a cute tap dance and imply that the only reason anyone could be against the deal is that they are a racist idiot.

You're right, much better.

[banyon]

For everybody who thought that DP World pulled out of the deal on its own:
______________________________
March 10, 2006 — The White House asked Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to give up its management stake in U.S. ports, to save President Bush from the politically difficult position of vetoing a key piece of legislation to protect America's ports, ABC News has learned.

When the company announced Thursday that it would sell its management stake in six U.S. ports, it was a stunning defeat for Bush, who had put his political capital on the line to back the deal, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said.

rest of article (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1708847&page=1)

[CRONUS]

Your ability to be confused never ceases to amaze me. The only people I ever heard talk about Iraq's "ties to 9/11" were people like you falsely claiming that the administration said there were some.

patteeu here you go from the Washington Post
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09 President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

[CRONUS]

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/)

[WoodDraw]

I don't necessarily think that, but what proof do you have that tere are no ties?

None, other than I haven't seen any information that links the two together. Has the other half of the country just seen information I haven't, or are they associating the Afghanistan and Iraq wars together? I obviously would go for the latter, but I'll read anything you can give me for the former.

I have been using it sarcastically in my last few posts, but the White House constantly talks about things having changed after 9/11. We can no longer sit back and wait for people to attack us; we must seek them out. Bush has said that 9/11 changed his perspective and that's why he went for Iraq. He associated them together to help sell it. That same association can be used throughout the whole Middle East - from Iraq to the UAE.

[Chiefs Express]

None, other than I haven't seen any information that links the two together. Has the other half of the country just seen information I haven't, or are they associating the Afghanistan and Iraq wars together? I obviously would go for the latter, but I'll read anything you can give me for the former.

I have been using it sarcastically in my last few posts, but the White House constantly talks about things having changed after 9/11. We can no longer sit back and wait for people to attack us; we must seek them out. Bush has said that 9/11 changed his perspective and that's why he went for Iraq. He associated them together to help sell it. That same association can be used throughout the whole Middle East - from Iraq to the UAE.

From what I've read there are ties to money being transferred from Iraqi sources to Al Queda. If that doesn't make a case then none could exist.

[Nightwish]

The whole port issue was kind of dumb from the start. The Dems jumped the gun raising a stink over the whole issue, taking a page from the Republican playbook by exploiting national fears, when it should never have been an issue, as the security of the ports has nothing to do with the ownership. On the other hand, I do find it very interesting that Bush was so eager to veto any attempt to postpone the deal, demonstrating a suspiciously strong personal interest in something that he claims he only heard about through the media.

[WoodDraw]

From what I've read there are ties to money being transferred from Iraqi sources to Al Queda. If that doesn't make a case then none could exist.

Well first, it is important to distinguish between ties to Al Qaeda and ties to September 11th. I am sure that on some level there were contacts between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda officials. Both are huge networks though so that by itself doesn't mean much.

We also need to define ties. For me, it means significant involvement, i.e. funding, harboring, and/or training. I haven't seen any legitimate hint of that happening. From my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report book:

"Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad concurred in its [the memo's] conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. The memo found no 'compelling case' that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."

It goes on to talk about Wolfowitz arguing strongly for attention to paid to Iraq, Powell dismissing his arguments as baseless, and the whole situation eventually being put off.

[Nightwish]

Not to mention that a money trail between Al Qaeda and Iraqi sources does not constitute a tie between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was also (and probably still is) receiving money from American sources. Does that mean that there's a tie between the US and Al Qaeda? I'm an American "source" of money, and I used to give money to Sinn Fein. Does that constitute a tie between the US and the IRA?

[Chiefs Express]

Well first, it is important to distinguish between ties to Al Qaeda and ties to September 11th. I am sure that on some level there were contacts between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda officials. Both are huge networks though so that by itself doesn't mean much.

We also need to define ties. For me, it means significant involvement, i.e. funding, harboring, and/or training. I haven't seen any legitimate hint of that happening. From my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report book:

"Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad concurred in its [the memo's] conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. The memo found no 'compelling case' that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."

It goes on to talk about Wolfowitz arguing strongly for attention to paid to Iraq, Powell dismissing his arguments as baseless, and the whole situation eventually being put off.

If you start a business and ask for money from "investors" and your business tends to be illegal does that not mean that you supported an illegal business with your investment?

This really looks like the Clinton question: What is the definition of IS?

[Chiefs Express]

Not to mention that a money trail between Al Qaeda and Iraqi sources does not constitute a tie between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was also (and probably still is) receiving money from American sources. Does that mean that there's a tie between the US and Al Qaeda? I'm an American "source" of money, and I used to give money to Sinn Fein. Does that constitute a tie between the US and the IRA?

One of the largest Al Queda cells in the U.S. hold fund raisers. Did you contribute?

[patteeu]

patteeu here you go from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda are not the same as ties between Iraq and 9/11.

[patteeu]

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/)


Refusing to rule out a connection is not the same thing as making the connection. My God, haven't we all been through this enough times to have it straight yet?

The administration's position is that there is no proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11 nor is there proof of a collaberative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda but that there is quite a bit of evidence that there were ties/contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade or more.

[Baby Lee]

The whole port issue was kind of dumb from the start. The Dems jumped the gun raising a stink over the whole issue, taking a page from the Republican playbook by exploiting national fears, when it should never have been an issue, as the security of the ports has nothing to do with the ownership. On the other hand, I do find it very interesting that Bush was so eager to veto any attempt to postpone the deal, demonstrating a suspiciously strong personal interest in something that he claims he only heard about through the media.
I agree with all of that, except I think Bush's 'strong personal interest' was in keeping a tenuous ally with a strong potential to be a help to us happy.

[MarcBulger]

DIDDOS patteeu

The left would rather lose than win if it gives Bush the blues. All about us not whats good for the country but whats good for the Dem party....

They will deny it but the truth is the truth....

[WoodDraw]

If you start a business and ask for money from "investors" and your business tends to be illegal does that not mean that you supported an illegal business with your investment?

This really looks like the Clinton question: What is the definition of IS?

What the hell are you talking about? I said funding would clearly fall under the two having ties. But since ties can mean anything from low level contacts to the two working together on attacks, I felt it was important to distinguish between what's important and not so much important. You obviously felt no such need.

And again, feel free to post any links.

[Chiefs Express]

What the hell are you talking about? I said funding would clearly fall under the two having ties. But since ties can mean anything from low level contacts to the two working together on attacks, I felt it was important to distinguish between what's important and not so much important. You obviously felt no such need.

And again, feel free to post any links.:rolleyes:

[|Zach|]

:rolleyes:
Great Minds Discuss Ideas.

[WoodDraw]

Yeah, I don't get it. Was my argument unreasonable somewhere, or are you just rolling your eyes to avoid responding?

[|Zach|]

Yeah, I don't get it. Was my argument unreasonable somewhere, or are you just rolling your eyes to avoid responding?
He isn't smart.

[go bowe]

he ain't heavy, he's not my brother...