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 ...
Silly word game with 'conviction' aside, isn't evidence usually required to form an 'opinion'?
Apparently there is no evidence to suggest that UAE or DPW are a danger to us. Or that DPW has ever endangered port security ever, anywhere.
You'd think that would have mattered in this debate . . .
Cute, Earthdweller!
be well FRiend! :)
But what are you going to do about them growing in number and coming to get us!!!
I'm not voting for you for Potus unless you answer the question. LOL
Although you are sounding more and more like a politician dodging the questin like that. :)
Do I understand you correctly -- you mean you're opposed to this but you're not afraid they're a danger to us?
"The Zim official "has to represent his shareholders," Schumer told CNN on Thursday. "We have to represent security in America. And so, it really doesn't matter to me what Zim says."
My sentiments also.
Exactly.
Are you saying you're not afraid they're a danger to us? Yet you opposed this deal?
Don't trust them to do -- what?
So if you aren't afraid DPW was a danger to us . . . then why did you say, in post 41, I rather be a live bigot than a dead infidel.
The main reason this was opposed by folks was clearly stated -- people are afraid this will make us less safe.
Do you not agree with that statement?
You are a bigot. Get back under the rock you crawled out of.
You are a bigot too.
You are a bigot too.
I honestly don't understand.
You say you aren't afraid they're dangerous. But you won't say what it is you don't trust about them, then.
I'd think you could easily explain something that is obviously so important to you . . .
And to you and the other Bush-bots, The Deal is Off,....get over it!!!
"Bush-bots"? :-)
"He don't know me very well, do he?" I oppose Bush on here far more than I support him. I didn't vote for him the 1st time (I wrote in my father-in-law). Cuz when he was our Gov here in Texas he campaigned on a promise of school vouchers, which he then completely avoided once elected. (Education reform is my single biggest concern).
Your assumption there is about as correct as your others.
BUMP!
The self-admitted "moderates" who snuck in with this administration under false colors are showing their true, and ugly nature.
Their self-righteousness, where they cavalierly condemn conservatives, is "as filthy rags."
Many of them likely won't even know to what I am alluding.
Globalist Neoliberal Economic Utopians repent! In all seriousness, there is a non protectionist argument against the port deal. I see a difference between sugar subsidies and national security. Globalists cannot draw this distinction. It's not because they are unable to, it's because the "Flat World / Fast World" construct falls apart the minute we rank various economic activities versus their criticality vis a vis national security. The reason globalists refuse to do this, is because once one admits that the possibility of real war between real nation states (as opposed to war against non state actors and rogues) still exists, then the whole premise of the "Flat / Fast World" fall apart. Globalists know this and therefore they must knee jerk oppose any act or inquiry which may subject any economic activity to considerations beyond simple profit and loss.
My post about a dead infidel was a joke. You know - the old "I'd rather be a live chicken than a dead duck"? But I am not afraid of Dubai or the UAE or DPW. The closet port to be is about 900 miles - lol.
Hillary Clinton THANKS YOU.
Many countries put restrictions on foreign ownership of businesses. The US of A puts restriction on foreign ownership of certain businesses, hence the CFIUS process. So even the USA is not completely open to foreign investment either.
I'm a bigot yet you are the one calling people names. Hmmm...
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.