----'Friends' who toss a handful of coins at your feet and expect you to scramble for them we don't need.----
This is the best post of the entire thread.
-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.
We're all waiting for you to post just one informed post.
But only you seemed to be attacking those who disagree with you as "stupid".
I don't think there is even one post on this thread where I called anyone stupid. Show it to me. Don't show me a post where I generalized either. Show me where I called a specific poster stupid.
Again with semantics. Substitute "operate" for "control".
That's not semantics either. They were neither going to control or operate a port. They were going to manage, at quite a corporate distance, a few terminals. You have been lying through your teeth about that. Not a few have pointed that out.
The President is wrong on the borders.
Back during Desert Storm I a Saudi official was quoted in the WSJ saying, "Why should I send my own son to die for the Kuwaitis when I have my white slaves from America to do it for me ?"
Now the Islamic world has a long history of 'slave soldiers' like ghulams or Mamluks or Janissaries who were the model for the fictional "Sardaukar" in "Dune". But it still stings. It stings because the Gulf Arabs are so accustomed to dealing with corrupt Americans that they have no real respect for us. They are used to stupid girls who thought they were marrying into Arabian Nights. They are used to whores. They are used to State Department Arabists who look forward to cozy careers as Saudi lobbyists. After 9/11 when they sent a delegation to a WTO conference in NYC, they decided to embark on a 'charm offensive'. As if throwing around big tips in Manhattan would endear them to us.
The UAE was convinced that they had greased the right people and this would easily go through. They greased Limbaugh plenty. They are angry and shocked to see that not every American has his price.
'Friends' who toss a handful of coins at your feet and expect you to scramble for them we don't need.
Knock yourself out.
Well, the way the deal stands right now, I no longer have to worry about it.
This is the best post of the entire thread.
-Dan
We elect them to represent our interests.
I don't think so. You said you hadn't seen suggestions other than mass deportations on FR. Didn't you?
BTTT
So, UAE resorts to economic blackmail.
Extortion is probably a better word but can you blame them?
We don't protect our northern or southern borders, many liberal cities all over the nation refuse to make any effort to enforce immigration laws, we sold zillions of high tech equipment and manuals to China and others who we can't really call our friends and then we give the finger to one of the few middle eastern governments who have sided with us on the war on terror and who have done so at great risk to themselves. Look at our other port operations nation wide and see who else operates them. They are operated by China, Singapore and others and some of these deals were made under democratic admins. Carter gave Panama canal back to Panama who sold it to the Chinese. This action by both spineless Democrats and republicans in congress is outrageous. There is no hope left folks. Let's just throw in the towel. We are no longer blessed with leadership who consider long term effects of their decisions but by those opportunists who have only their own selfish political interests up front.
Any proof for your libel? I was e-mailing my senators and representatives a good week before Schumer jumped on board. And I was far from alone.
Your facts are false and have been well proven false. The statement above speaks for itself.
BTTT
I just did a quick scan, and only got through about 1/4 of this thread. There is much more.
#326,190,176,129,119,9
also:
#10 and 22 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593048/posts
OK. We do not NEED the UAE as an ally. If we can continue with current arrangements, fine. If they scotch all cooperation over this, we do NOT need them. This will not happen. Dubai voluntarily offered to divest the American part of the deal, and did not throw the military out. So you are speculating.
Set your daughters up as hostesses for young Moslem males. We need to understand and accept their culture and that seems like a good start.
A vacation mansion for the emirs. It can be built on the graves of those who died on 9-11.
You are dodging. You are adding extraneous garbage to avoid answering a very simple question, which was (at #1529):
Bottom line: Would the WOT (and therefore the U.S.) be better served by A) an alliance with the UAE or B)not having the UAE as an ally? A or B?
No, I said I saw that on thoese threads. Big time.
4 out of 6 by the same poster. And nothing racist about refering to UAE as an "Arab" nation. I was thinking that you have sees alot of posts that use the word Arab in an insulting/racist manner. Guess I was not clear on that point, sorry.
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.