The UAE Backs Down, Bush takes a nap and sucks his thumb

This shouldn't die with Dubai
But I think deep down you and I both know it will. Politicians aren't being driven by wanting to fix the most critical threats to our borders, they were trying to score political points against the other side or reacting to opinion polls. Arguing about DPW while ignoring our open borders is like a fireworks factory that puts up a razor wire fence to keep arsonists out, but allows its employees to smoke on the job. The Democratic leadership shows little signs of moving beyond the DPW deal... instead of "moving on" to other companies and port issues, they've instead signaled that they want a "full investigation" into the American entity that will take over the contracts... whatever that means.

And just because an American company should manage these tasks doesn't mean that corrupt Halliburton should be the one doing it. Sharks and Wolves aren't our only options.
And on what basis could the government interceed? The most likely transfer would be that DPW would sell the contracts to another private company. Remember, this whole bru-ha-ha wasn't over the bidding of the contracts, it was about a corporate aqcusition of existing contracts. Government review was only required due to the foreign nature of the deal. Unless it violates a term of the contract or could be deemed as creating a monopoly (which I doubt), this would simply be a private transaction between two privately held companies and outside of the reach of the government. You don't want "corrupt" Halliburton to take the ports over, then I suggest you take it up with DPW as its basically their call.
 
Government review was only required due to the foreign nature of the deal. Unless it violates a term of the contract or could be deemed as creating a monopoly (which I doubt), this would simply be a private transaction between two privately held companies and outside of the reach of the government.

What is the role of government? Number 1: protection. That is their primary resonsibility.

Anything having to do with national security, IS the government's business. All I'm saying is that corporate dealings that overlap into areas of national security should be monitored and regulated by that national government in the interest of national security.

Will they is another question and I agree with you that they probably won't because our government at the moment is not really concerned with national security and the welfare of the American people, they are only concerned with lining their pockets and gaining more power. This is evident by the HUGE gaping hole that we have on our southern boarder, our unprotected ports and pipelines and various other obvious security ommisions.
 
Anything having to do with national security, IS the government's business. All I'm saying is that corporate dealings that overlap into areas of national security should be monitored and regulated by that national government in the interest of national security.
Being the operator of a port in US comes with a large set of security related governmental rules and regulations that one must follow. Deviate from them, and there may be consequences that may include losing the contract by breaching its terms. If a US firm can demonstrate that it can adhere to the terms of the contract, can pass any required legal muster, and there's no language in the contract that allows the government to "escape" from the contract, than on what legal basis can the government prohibit the transfer of the contract? "Not liking" a company wouldn't be much of a legal defence if the contract holder pleads before a court on the basis of the contract.
 
Laz said:
Bush supports the UAE and must withdraw the company due to Political pressure. Instead an American company will run it. Which US company can come close to handling it? Try Haliburton. Who wins?
The Halliburton thing is simply a baseless rumor that the left and the Democrat-Media Complex have latched onto.

However, on Feb 21, Chuckie Schumer D-NY said:

"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told Fox News Channel's John Gibson.

So why not let Halliburton do it - Chuckie and the DemocRats are on board... :rotfl2:

But I want to see who is going to get blamed if UAE drops its orders for Boeing 777's and goes with Airbus (i.e. France) and kicks all of our Navy ships out of its ports.

I'm sure the Bush-haters will blame Bush for this also... :rotfl2:
 

How many US business have interest in the UAE. So the UAE kicks them out because of this! Bush will get blamed for the economic impact. Its a lose-lose situation with the bleeding hearts these day.
 
:sad2: There are too many Republicans on their side.
 
(from www.cnn.com)

What will the Dubai debacle cost us?

Now the deal is done, it's time for American companies to face the economic consequences of politicians' public statements.

By Nelson D. Schwartz, FORTUNE Europe editor
March 10, 2006: 10:50 AM EST

NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - So the Dubai ports deal is done, a United Arab Emirates-owned company has backed down, and CNN anchor (and deal opponent) Lou Dobbs is going to have to find something else to talk about. But the after-effects are likely to be felt in boardrooms across America as well as on Capitol Hill and in Arab capitals from Riyadh to Bahrain and Cairo.

That's because while the decision Thursday by Dubai-based DP World to complete its takeover of the U.K.'s P&O while transferring or selling the U.S. operations may placate opponents on Capitol Hill, it's likely to worry major American exporters such as Boeing (Research), GE (Research) and other companies that see growing opportunity in the oil and money-rich Gulf.

"Our members are very concerned about what the failure of this deal means," says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington trade association that represents large U.S. multi-nationals. "They haven't wanted to be visible but they're very concerned about the signals the U.S. is sending out."

Indeed, The Hill, a Washington newspaper that covers Congress, reported that Dubai's royal family is "furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal."

And with Boeing hoping to land a major order for its new 787 Dreamliner with Dubai-based airline Emirates down the road, the stakes are high. Elsewhere in the region, the UAE's Etihad Airways has already ordered more than $1 billion worth of 777s, and Egyptair and Royal Jordanian are longtime Boeing buyers.

"These are important customers for us in an important, growing market," says Boeing spokesman John Dern. "We are with these customers all the time. We haven't seen any impact at this point, and have no indication there will be an impact." Dern wouldn't say whether Boeing execs have specifically discussed the ports controversy with potential customers, but he notes that "we're certainly monitoring the situation."

Don't expect news of any public threats or cancelled orders to come from the Gulf in the coming days or weeks. "That's out of character for the Gulf states," says Reinsch. "It's more likely they'll just act, and suddenly a deal is off."

Reinsch adds he that the doesn't think opponents of the deal on Capitol Hill gave much thought to the possibility that blocking the deal could boomerang and end up hurting U.S. companies. "It's the law of unintended consequences," he says.

The biggest loser in the short-term, according to Reinsch, is the Bush administration, which has been trying to create a Middle East free trade zone modeled on NAFTA that would extend trade privileges with the United States to countries from North Africa all the way to Iraq by 2013.

Jordan and Morocco have already signed deals with the United States, and Bahrain and Oman are in the final stages of negotiations. "These countries are not without resources and they can't help but react negatively when they're thrust into this."

Now that DP World has given up, the action will likely move behind closed doors, far away from the media attention that made the controversy such a hot topic, especially on the cable gab-fests (including those on CNN, the parent of CNNMoney.com).

Companies like Boeing are likely to work their contacts in the region, and try to patch things up. And former Bush administration economist and American Enterprise Institute Fellow Phillip Swagel says the Gulf states should send emissaries to meet with outspoken port deal opponents like New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and explain to them the economic power of the Gulf region.

Not a bad idea but whether Schumer, Clinton and other politicians understand the economic consequences of their public statements, rather than the political benefits, is another matter.

.
 
:lmao: :rotfl2: :lmao: :rotfl2: :lmao: :rotfl2:

I swear...those people that twist themselves into pretzels and stuff themselves into litte tiny boxes for other peoples entertainment have nothing on the contortions that the die-hard sheep will go through to try to deflect blame away from the moron-in-chief. :rotfl:

Thanks for the laughs, guys...I'll let you go back to your spinning now. :rolleyes:
 
Let me just say that I never thought it was a good idea and therefore I was against it. However...

JudicialTyranny said:
The Halliburton thing is simply a baseless rumor that the left and the Democrat-Media Complex have latched onto.

However, on Feb 21, Chuckie Schumer D-NY said:

"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told Fox News Channel's John Gibson.
What's going to happen is if Halliburton gets the contract, people like Chuckie Schumer and the other libs will be the first to come out against that. Another Cheney connection thing.

So why not let Halliburton do it - Chuckie and the DemocRats are on board... :rotfl2:
If this is true, I haven't seen anything on this so I don't know if it is ture, then I don't think it'll matter because they will still be complaining.

But I want to see who is going to get blamed if UAE drops its orders for Boeing 777's and goes with Airbus (i.e. France) and kicks all of our Navy ships out of its ports.
I'd be interested to know what would happens as well. As soon as the UAE starts to cancel contracts then the left will automatically blame Bush.
 
I swear...those people that twist themselves into pretzels and stuff themselves into litte tiny boxes for other peoples entertainment have nothing on the contortions that the die-hard sheep will go through to try to deflect blame away from the moron-in-chief.
When Hillary, Chuck et al start tackling the open border issues and some of the other clearly demonstrable security threats we have with the same zeal that they demonstrated towards DPW, let me know will you? Then we'll see what's spin and what's not.
 
Geoff_M said:
3) DHL - They fly many tons of cargo into our country each day. They're owned by a foreign entity (Deutsche Post) with the German government as it's largest stockholder. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by the infamous "Hamburg Cell". Germany claims to be our ally, but has been resistent in helping the US in the GWOT. German courts don't have a good track record at punishing the "supporting cast" of the 9/11 attacks. They 9/11 terrorists received money through German banks. etc. etc. If we are to believe people when they raised similar points when refuting the notion their objections to the DPW deal was based in xenophobic knee-jerking, then they should look at DHL with the same jandiced eyes.

I've rarely read so much crap in one post :rotfl2:

1) Germany was one the first countries assuring the USA of its unconditional support in the war against terror and our soldiers are still in Afghanistan fighting that war.
2) The terrorists received money through American banks, too.
3) The terrorists had all their pilot training in the USA.
4) The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war AGAINST terror - it just CAUSED more terror - and before this year it over it will have killed more Americans than 9/11 as the daily deathtoll in Iraq doesn't come to a stop :sad2:

Your reasoning -although I heavily doubt there was any reason involved- says that, because they used German banks Germany is involved, is like saying that the USA are involved, because the terrorists used Boeing aircraft operated by American carriers :rolleyes: :sad2:
 
Puffy2 said:
One foreign company down...how many more to go that still manage matters that are closely tied to our national security. This shouldn't die with Dubai - we need to get rid of ALL foreign controlled businesses with their hands in our national security cookie jar - and that includes our "allies".

This may be news to you:
-We live in a globalized world
-Stocks can be bought by anyone. Even if you had a 'pure' American company, how would you know who's behind the trusts and funds owning the stock. And behind the trust that owns the trust, etc, etc ad nauseam.
The Arabs already own a considerable part of your -and also of our- economy. And so do the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans, and even the Russians already play a major role. When the Cold War ended the American dream came true: Capitalism rules the whole world - except for North Korea and Cuba, perhaps. And as long as there are For-Sale-signs all over our countries everything goes to the highest bidder :confused3
You wanted it that way - now stop whining :teeth:
 
Viking said:
I've rarely read so much crap in one post :rotfl2:

1) Germany was one the first countries assuring the USA of its unconditional support in the war against terror and our soldiers are still in Afghanistan fighting that war.
2) The terrorists received money through American banks, too.
3) The terrorists had all their pilot training in the USA.
4) The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war AGAINST terror - it just CAUSED more terror - and before this year it over it will have killed more Americans than 9/11 as the daily deathtoll in Iraq doesn't come to a stop :sad2:

Your reasoning -although I heavily doubt there was any reason involved- says that, because they used German banks Germany is involved, is like saying that the USA are involved, because the terrorists used Boeing aircraft operated by American carriers :rolleyes: :sad2:
I think the poster was being sarcastic and saying that if Americans continue to become more and more xenophobic then they will eventually start to question the likes of DHL being allowed to operate into the US because, horror of horrors, they are owned by foreigners.

ford family
 
Updated: 10:49 a.m. ET March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON - More and more people, even more Republicans, disapprove of President Bush’s performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

“I’m not happy with how things are going,” said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. “I’m particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina.”

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

“You’re in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

“People have seen and heard (Bush’s) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, ‘Well, I wonder what other people can do,”’ he said.


but remember, he's a uniter, not a divider
 
Viking said:
Your reasoning -although I heavily doubt there was any reason involved- says that, because they used German banks Germany is involved, is like saying that the USA are involved, because the terrorists used Boeing aircraft operated by American carriers :rolleyes: :sad2:

I don't think he's trying to make that case, he's just likening it to the case made against Dubai: It's a "bad" state because of the terrorist connections.

edited to add: what ford family said. :p
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top