Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Goodbye, Dubai (Protectionists Rejoice)
Los Angeles Times ^ | March 10, 2006 | The Editors

Posted on 03/10/2006 10:28:49 AM PST by RWR8189

PROTECTIONISTS, REJOICE! The dastardly United Arab Emirates company that would have presumed to unload containers of underwear and toothpaste on U.S. soil has backed down, and it will now divest its U.S. port interests to an American entity. Rest assured, the nation is now safe from dangerous Middle Eastern accountants and port logistics specialists.

Dubai Ports World did what was necessary, if not necessarily fair, on Thursday by agreeing to give up the U.S. operations of its newly acquired British ports company. The House Appropriations Committee had voted 62 to 2 on Wednesday to block the deal; a similar bill was pending in the Senate.

Although President Bush rightly stood by the acquisition and vowed to veto any bill that stood in its way, he was fighting a losing battle that only deepened a growing rift in the Republican Party. Dubai Ports World officials wisely recognized that they had to put some distance between themselves and their new U.S. assets. The company probably will sell its U.S. assets or create a U.S. company with a separate board to run them.

Much as we wish it would go away, the fight may not be over yet.

For one, the terms of the divestiture remain unclear, and some members of Congress are demanding more details. Will it be enough for Dubai Ports World to create a U.S. subsidiary? Will it have to open headquarters in the United States? Pay its employees in dollars?

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: appeasemuslimsnow; dpworld; dubai; dubaidubya; editoralintitle; frplaystheracecard; fuggedaboudit; godnotagain; muslims; portgate; ports; protectionism; sellingoutamerica; whineyglobalists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-343 next last
To: GOP_1900AD
C-Ya, you big L!

"L"?

How do ya figure?

Just cuz I don't want to support the liberal, opportunist R party who went lock-step with Schumer and his ilk?

Did *you* support Schumer's anti-DPW agenda in the house?

121 posted on 03/10/2006 12:14:45 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: thinkthenpost

RE: "why then haven't you been screaming for all foreign operators"

Actually, I did, a long time ago. There are a number of exposures, at present, in need of discussion. Both in terms of ownership by hostile states or potentially hostile states and in terms of supply chain risk.


122 posted on 03/10/2006 12:15:08 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

That is a really good point.


123 posted on 03/10/2006 12:16:00 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

Why don't you think people can make decisions for themselves? Why are you telling me all about Chuckie? I live in NC so I really don't care waht Chuckie thinks about much of anything. I just happen to agree with what he says (although that isn't necessarily what he believes). But I didn't need to hear his opinion before having my own.


124 posted on 03/10/2006 12:16:19 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

What do you think big "L" stands for?


125 posted on 03/10/2006 12:16:54 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Still, fracturing the vote plays right into the Democrats game plan. I used Hillary as an example, but it applies to any election contest.

These Rs just supported Hilly, and Schumer, and the rest.

So I oppose these Rs.

I opposed Hilly. These Rs did not. So I don't believe that voting for Rs is opposing Hilly and friends.

126 posted on 03/10/2006 12:17:18 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

No - don't think it would affect security but I don't know. There are those who know way more about the security issues of our ports than I do. I would defer to them.


127 posted on 03/10/2006 12:17:42 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
And how would you describe Hamas?

A government partley funded by the US and Israel.

128 posted on 03/10/2006 12:17:44 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD
What do you think big "L" stands for?

Ooops -- I assumed you meant, 'Liberal', and were calling me one!

Did I just put my hoof in the ole choppers?

129 posted on 03/10/2006 12:18:32 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: jec41

But not a terrorist organization? Hmmm...


130 posted on 03/10/2006 12:19:13 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD
I am verrrrry displeased with our Republican congressmen on this. They had no interest in looking at the facts - and now the administration looks powerless, the people look racist, the nations who thought they were our friends will question whether or not that is true.

The damage is irreversable. al Queda looks wise to tell the other Arabs not to trust the U.S. - China is wondering what about their port operations in the U.S.

Big plus for al Queda and China and Iran and Hamas and North Korea. Big loss for intelligence operations, foreign policy and the war on terror.

It was never a fiscal issue to me - it was always about national security.

131 posted on 03/10/2006 12:21:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Hmmm..., is right!


132 posted on 03/10/2006 12:21:37 PM PST by monkeywrench (Deut. 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
No - don't think it would affect security but I don't know.

Ok, I understand then.

Have you posted disagreement at all with the folks here who were/are screaming that this would endanger us? Just out of curiosity?

And does it bother you to know that they were likely wrong, and that was the primary reason for opposition to this deal?

133 posted on 03/10/2006 12:21:52 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: jec41
"A government partley funded by the US and Israel."

Bzzzzt! Wrong. Think, now, I'm sure you can get it right.

134 posted on 03/10/2006 12:22:52 PM PST by monkeywrench (Deut. 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

I have said quite a few times that my primary opposition is because of their support of Hamas and not recognizing Israel. Security is another issue but not a big one for me. Does that answer your question?


135 posted on 03/10/2006 12:24:08 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Does that answer your question?

No.

The majority of the 'anti-deal' posts have used as their reason a fear that this will make our ports less safe.

I would think that if you disagreed with them, you might have once mentioned it.

Did you? Just curious.

136 posted on 03/10/2006 12:28:24 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: jec41
Business does not cease just because congress none of the 'Bots does not know the difference between a port, a port terminal, or a port-a-potty. Neither does it succumb to politics, racism or other agendas. It simply finds another way.

Your statement needed to be corrected. And it was. Also the RESULTS here. Who do you THINK came up with the ideas? Save your thanks for conservatives.

I am looking at new taglines...how about "Take a conservative to lunch today!" or "Have you hugged a conservative today?"

137 posted on 03/10/2006 12:31:18 PM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

I honestly don't know. We have been arguing this subject on many different threads for some time now. But I am just one small voice in the sea of dissent on this matter so don't worry too much about my opinion. It really doesn't mean much. I promise I did not call the WH and complain. I have not contacted my senators and told them I wanted them to stop the deal. I've simply posted some statements about what I think here on FR. You need to go after bigger fish if you are looking for someone to blame the end of the deal on.

Have a great weekend.


138 posted on 03/10/2006 12:31:41 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

No. I am describing what you truly are. Deal with it.


139 posted on 03/10/2006 12:31:43 PM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

LOL - oh - now you have gone and hurt my feelings and I will have a terrible weekend because you were mean to me!


140 posted on 03/10/2006 12:32:24 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-343 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson