Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by ARCADIA
Excellent post and I love your tag line!!!
Don't buy the "operational license" agrument, it's a bogus one. The new owners of P & O need to acquire new contracts to operate at our ports, because when the British concern sold it to the UAE government, the original contracts to work at our six eastern ports expired; (exactly when I'm not sure, there may be some 'extention' period to facilitate the ownership transfer, etc).
Were it simply about applying for a "license" to work at our ports, then Osama bin Laden or Hugo Chaves could buy the company and be just a license application away from controlling our eastern seaport shipping terminals. (Actually, with the UAE in control, the bin Laden possibility becomes a little less remote). Anyway, this is about acquiring contracts, not license applications. Whoever threw this canard out there must have been paid by somebody.
If Rush has money invested in the deal that would probably hold true but I think in this case it's about politics. He got his marching orders.
....and an awful lot of Marines were mad at Reagan for that...
It's funny how all the friends of Dubai can't tell us why it's a GOOD deal.
True. And there are some things within America's control, and some things that aren't. The argument I'm hearing from some is that since we can't take preventative measures everywhere, why take them anywhere?
If we blocked the assignment of those operational contracts the deal to acquire P&O would probably collapse. It certainly would need to be renegotiated because it would be worth a lot less to Port World without the 8 US ports. Rather than give up those contracts which would be a complete write-off and economic loss, P&O would probably opt to keep operating the ports themselves or find another buyer that was acceptable to the USA.
Fortunately for P&O shareholders, such a buyer exists. Port World was not the only company bidding for P&O assets. There was a huge Singapore based port operating company that was engaged in a bidding war against Port World for P&O. An article about this was posted somewhere on FR yesterday. Unfortunately for P&O shareholders this other company was apparently offering less and if Port World got knocked out of the game they might even revise there offer further downwards. But nobody ever said investing was risk free. I frankly am willing to deprive shareholders in a British Company of some return on their investment if I think it is the smartest thing for American security.
More 'creative' thinking of one looking through the haze of nostalgia.
None. And I just looked.
I find it somewhat hypocritical to note the final battle is on, then be in favor of this deal. (Not directed at you.)
We often refer to seat of power in the US as Washington.
Same to me.
Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports (From David Horowitz's Frontpagemag.com)
The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West
I disagree. This is a national security issue. It is somewhat disturbing to see so many FReepers posting opinions in support of allowing this sweetheart deal to go through without questioning its legitimacy. The world has changed since 9-11 ans we need to remain vigilant at all times. People need to wake up and understand that jihadism is alive and well. Jihadism lives throughout the ME. Including, in the UAE!
idiots indeed. It now seems like everyone is jumping into the bandwagon without carefully considering their take on the situation. My first impression of this matter was "wtf!!?" but following the latest developments, I think it wopuld be in good hands, or in the hands of the chinese, take your pick. it is a port operation permit, not a takeover. security and ownership still is ours, this is a lease. UAE would certainly make lots of money, with one out of thee ppl being a millionare.. the economic influx would be good. UAE is no hurry to let a bunch of militants crash and burn their golden goose you know. Bush is following an old strategery here: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Libs without knowing have admitted there really is a threat of terrorism...
No problem. Just wanted to note that despite it being her domain.........nothing was ever said about her lack of attention to the operations under her control.
Please explain how does the deal make sense financially? And for whom?
And the implied point being that the middle east is no more likely to produce terrorists than anywhere else. Hooray for politically correct relativism!
Bingo! It boils down to this question. Does alienating the few Arab countries willing to help us in the WoT, help us or hurt us?
I would love to totally ignore that part of the world, and not have to deal with them, but that is just not reality.
The problem as I see it isn't necessarily the government of UAE, it's the possibility of terrorist infiltration through bribery and other tactics. There's no way this government can be sure that's not going to happen unless they set up a whole new separate task force just to keep an eye on them, which I guarantee we're going to see happening eventually if the deal goes through.
I'm kind of surprised actually.
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.