Posted on 06/20/2006 1:05:25 PM PDT by Valin
Remember Dubai Ports International?
The first-rate Emirates-based firm that, fair and square, tried to buy the operations of several U.S. ports? They were reviled as terrorists, a public outcry followed and then U.S. Congress stuck its nose into the whole business, baselessly condemning the company for no good reason until they were ignominously forced to withdraw from those plans. It was totally unfair to them, they didn’t deserve that kind of treatment, and it sent an incredibly bad message to the rest of the world that the U.S. was flamingly hypocritical. That whole debacle made me ill.
Anyway, this setback hasn’t driven the good company down. Today, Dubai Ports has gotten a new contract to develop Puerto Callao, in Peru, creating a vibrant container terminal where none existed, so that Peru can export its natural gas reserves and anything else would like to export, and get rich doing it. After all, they’ve got a free trade pact with the U.S., they might as well use it!
This port is extremely critical for Peru’s development and will serve as a beachhead from which Peru can challenge the energy export supremacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his little Bolivian minime, Evo Morales. From this new port, tons of new energy will flow to the U.S.’s, Mexico’s and Asia’s markets, adding to world supply, driving down the prices, and in the end doing its part to put these dictators out of business.
Thank you, Dubai Ports International.
False. Supported the WOT. Did you? The naming, so far as it went, the Axis of Evil. [Wish he had gone further and looked to the sponsors of the sponsors]. The "either your for us or against us" challenge to enemies of our pursuit of the terrorists. Did you? Unfortunately it is W himself who has been running away from these things lately. Apologizing right and left. Sheee!
You consistently cite, to support your hatred for Bush, articles from the moonbat left.
Oh, like Phyllis Schlafly and Jerome Corsi? Richard Fischer? The IWG on Missile Defense? Edwin Meese? Caspar Weinberger? Ronald Reagan. Bill Bennett. Peter Roff. Mark Steyn, and so on. Roooight. Time for you to get your meds, Horse. This site was created to defend our liberty, not enslave conservatives to a single man.
Those articles are written by those who despise the United States and everything it stands for, and you quote them with unquestioning approval.
Answer the blasted substance. Til you do, you must either approve them, or can't deny them. You are simply evading. Typical leftist tactic, hence as I've said... you are the leftist, and your sayings are the Leftist Material.
You give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States
False. Name one enemy who takes comfort in conservatives standing up for the country. Who are you calling an "enemy" of the US? Curt Weldon? Duncan Hunter? Jon Kyl? JD Hayworth? John Kline? Rick Santorum? Dana Rohrbacher? Gil Gutnecht? John Thune?
I believe that the NYT editors should be prosecuted for treason... along with all promoters of Globalism...
"...you claim it to be "patriotism."
Sauce for the Goose. You apparently claim Globalism is patriotism now. It emphatically is TREASON. This is why Reagan demolished the Law of the Sea Treaty, and fired its negotiators. Self Rule requires a sovereign nation. Abdication or subversion of that sovereignty in favor of a Global entity which can define its own laws and conduct its own courts to enforce them against the nations destroys the purview of the self-ruled permanently.
I have appreciated W's avoidance, to date, of signing some of the International Conventions, Kyoto, and the ICC (Intl Criminal Court), but suspect his opposition wasn't principled pro-American sovereignty, but just tactical to preserve U.S. options. His Law Of the Sea Treaty embrace is a serious contradiction, that undermines a claim to defending the American sovereignty position. So is his SPP back-door North American Union. Wake up and smell the coffee.
"The assets were the U.S. terminal operations [ hoot ] 2 seconds."
No, the assets were leases that P & O owned. British, not American.
"But spheres are not routinely portable,"
What does portable have to do with the issue. The issue is containment port or not containment port. The article clearly states that the spheres allow for ships to carry in bulk without the need for LNG ports. In other words, this type of shipment can be made from a containment port.
The leases that were implicated in the CFIUS review were for American terminal operations. Hence, an "asset" whatever rules of book-keeping you want to employ. This is not rocket science and none of the lame responses by the Globalists to date shows the least recognition of the reality. If you note, CFIUS didn't reject its jurisdictional oversight on your grounds. They merely bungled their assessment of the risks...and intentionally so. As if signing paper "Assurances" of abiding by our laws...suddenly make deep and profound porous security problems go away...
CFIUS reviews the sale of assets (or ownership interests) in the name of U.S. national security. The only person on this thread that fails to understand this simple fact is Mr. Ross.
So you finally admit what I have been telling you. Man you are slow.
Me too, as it revealed knee-jerk, bandwagon stupidity like I never saw before.
It was scary, even here at Free Republic.
"The leases that were implicated in the CFIUS review were for American terminal operations. Hence, an "asset"
There are 2 asset groups you are discussing here. One is the terminals themselves. These are American assets, but these are not the subject of the discussion.
The second is the lease of operations, which is an entirely different asset group. This second asset group was owned by the people who had the lease, that was P & O, which was what the discussion is about, and it was British owned not American.
The fact that there is a lease or rental agreement creates assets seperate from the original assets.
Everybody who looked at the deal understood that immediately, so the issue was whether such a distinction had any real practical and enduring seperation or enhancement for security functions that we could rely upon. The disagreements revolve around that very thing. And the consensus was that there was a real problem with this. The deal was killed.
Everybody but you.
Talking about yourself again? Why do you insist on mumbling to yourself on Free Republic? Take it outside.
No. Just pointing out another one of your errors.
False. Your error. I knew about DPW from the first. You didn't. And you lied and lied about the white-wash "answers" to the objections. Typical.
You are just a schill, who lost money on the deal. Good.
You knew it was a British asset for sale?
What's a schill? And how would I lose money on a deal that never occurred?
And you lied and lied about the white-wash "answers" to the objections.
Sorry, I never commented on the "answers" or the objections.
He has a bad habit of being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the truth and then never admitting he was wrong.
Can you imagine the shenanigans that would occur on this website if comments could be edited after the fact, as elsewhere?
Like his claim that the Fed sets interest rates on Treasury Bills.
Rather than admit he was mistaken, he digs deeper and deeper into his hole.
They set the rates they sell at. That is the prerogative of governments selling governmental issues, Todd. They have delayed, deferred, and reduced sales before based on preliminary indicates they wouldn't get sales at their price.
Instead of admitting he was wrong, he has to claim that a Treasury auction really isn't an auction. And that the Feds change the size or date of an issue.
He's afraid that admitting an error will destroy his credibility. LOL!
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.