The American interest will have a UAE interest? So the UAE will be selling to itself? That makes no sense.
Believe me, I'd like to believe you. I'd like to believe that despite all the hysterical maniacs both here and on Capital Hill, the deal will go through anyway and the UAE will get what it wants. I just don't see how that's going to happen. At least not today.
What I can't understand is, to this day, why people are so convinced that the UAE is some terrorist state? I just saw a program on the National Geographic Channel last night about how Dubai is building a huge artificial island, and it's purpose is to increase its beach size by 39%. It's a freaking tourist state that has no interest in being terrorist for goodness sake, or do people here think they're spending $2 BILLION on a ruse? (and note, construction of the island began BEFORE 9/11, so all these claims about Dubai "turning into a friendly state only after 9/11" are ludicrous.)
The terrorists in the ME may have a lot of money, but they don't have that much. $2 billion here, $6.8 billion there, it starts to add up after a while.
Before I log off for the day, after watching this thread for a while, I'd like to add this: I think the opposition to the port deal IS based in racism, and I'm in SUPPORT of the idea of a fence blocking our southern border!
Chew on that.
You asked -- "The American interest will have a UAE interest? So the UAE will be selling to itself? That makes no sense."
That was just a guess on my part, as to whether the UAE had any interests in the other company. It's sort of like some laws in other countries in which the majority interest holder has to be a native of that country. So, the foreign interest holder simply constructs a deal with a "local" and makes the deal go through that way.
So, behind it all, it might very well turn out that the money is really UAE money with the "American interest" being majority interest holder in the company.
But, that's all speculation on my part. I'm just thinking that if you wanted a deal to "hold together" (like it was originally constructed), you might put it together that way in which it was the same deal (financially) but structured differently legally.
That may be what is going on here.
Regards,
Star Traveler