----Posted by a man who uses an animated gif in every single post.----
She's obsessed with my graphic, folks. Complains about it all the time. I'm sure I'm violating some subsection of some paragraph of some manual of Forum Decorum with it. :D
-Dan
Posted on 03/09/2006 9:02:17 AM PST by prairiebreeze
Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.
As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.
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.
“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.
Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.
Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.
A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.
“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.
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.”
Although owned by the Dubai government, the company at the heart of this controversy, Dubai Ports World, is trying to distance itself from any kinds of threats, said a lobbyist closely tracking the deal.
Another lobbyist monitoring the controversy said K Street still believes there will be a compromise that allows the Dubai deal to go through while meeting congressional security concerns, even though a bill aimed at that result, put forward by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), was widely repudiated amongst lawmakers Tuesday.
Senate leaders have indicated that they would wait to take action until the new 45-day Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review is completed.
Meanwhile, in London, DP World cleared the last hurdle for its take over of P&O. The Court of Appeal in London refused Miami-based Eller & Co., which opposed the deal, permission to appeal against clearances for the legal and financial measures necessary to implement the takeover.
P&O said it expects to file the requisite court orders, making the takeover terms binding on DP World, according to the Financial Times.
Elana Schor contributed to this report.
"But what if we could really help one of them to change?"
because we can't change their religion, and their religion forbids them from changing.
If it's just "letting them spend their money", then why the big, blustery response from them? They could easily buy up any number of American interests other than the ports and make plenty of money.
It's just when it comes to American oil companies like Unocal, or operation of ports, Americans get a little testy about foreign countries buying their way in.
Lucky for him he just had patriotic Americans willing to die fighting the enemy.
There's those lies again.
Posted by a man who uses an animated gif in every single post.
Is that internet equivalent of having a really big car or big stereo speakers?
He/she likely has another screen name for his/her home computer...lol... " _ _ _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _ " 3 words.
What you had was a ship that could not leave port on it's own power. There's more to a ship than screws. You have fuel pumping systems, electrical switchboards, generators, fire pumps, etc. My guess is after the hit her radar & electronics was also non functional. I won't say on the thread why but I know the reason why. Likely one nobody but a few snipes and the ET's would know. The engine room attack nearly destroyed the ship. Remember it had to be piggy backed to the states. A screw hit would have been iffy but this blast hit waterline and below.
If there is an attack going on say from Iran anywhere in the M.E. ALL ships need to leave port ASAP. A ship at sea is the most defend-able posture it can be in. Get them underway first then work out who goes where.
All refueling ops I was involved in was done at sea and for a while I worked in Fuel Oil Test Lab before going to auxiliaries.
I think you have that backwards. There have been far too many posts here on FR lately talking smack about ARABS, not just Muslims, but ARABS. Arab is a race, Islam is an ideology.
The shoe fits.
True enough. But if we won't offer them support...what do they get out of helping us, besides grief from those same countries? From what I have heard, the UAE is not Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria. I have heard they have treated our military personnel fairly well over there, although I also hear they are somewhat isolated as well. Any military personnel with personal experience wish to comment?
Fruitbat, that was directed toward KJC1, not you. I wish there was a CC: line; but in the meantime the first name is the To:, after that it is CC:. Sorry for the confusion. I had just noticed that you had responded to KJC1's comment to me.
Oh yeah........the Hills are alive with the sound of posting!
Nope....many don't.
I've been told it's because they are our friends. Not allies. Not business partners. Friends. LOL. Honestly. That's what I was told.
She's obsessed with my graphic, folks. Complains about it all the time. I'm sure I'm violating some subsection of some paragraph of some manual of Forum Decorum with it. :D
-Dan
Stiffer employee sanctions would be #1 on my list, followed by building a fence. Stopping the unfettered influx of illegal immigration is more important than getting rid of those that are already here; and I think that these are the kinds of politically tenable actions that could go a long way toward discouraging the flood. In the meantime, unfortunately, the mere discussion of these guest worker programs is only going to encourage more illegal immigration.
Gee, you must have a miserable life if somebody saying something about your "graphic" twice is OBSESSED.
Maybe you should go look for a "Mr. Lonely" graphic.
Which ones? That they would be operating our ports (a fact), or that the ports are a national security interest (also a fact)? Jesus, how can you trust a bunch of Arab Sheikhs in white robes this much?
Are you saying that with a straight font?
-Dan
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.