----and now reportedly Dubai is divesting itself of ALL American assets.... Hope everyone is happy.----
Aren't you? That's exactly what you wished for yesterday....
----Dumb damn bastards.----
Damn dirty apes!
-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.
I don't believe there's enough duct tape in the country for Chris Matthews if Halliburton actually does the deal.
LOLOL!
"Name calling doesn't give anymore credence to your argument"
Yet, your side continues to call business people terrorist and massage religious bigotry for votes.
Oh, yes, I forgot - the "Religion of Peace" strategy. I'm glad Iran changed its ways once we won their hearts and minds.
These people want to destroy our civilization. They have no interest in being friends with "the infidel".
"It's strictly business, Santino".
"So, UAE resorts to economic blackmail. "
Are you kidding. If you got slapped in the face how in the hell would you feel. You have called them an enemy.
You are right about some of the opposition. They are so certain of the importance of sealing the borders that they are willing to abandon the middle east to Al Qaeda just so long as we build a big wall to keep out mexicans.
Whatever company buys the U.S. subsidiaries which run these terminals, they won't be able to run the terminals as well as DP WOrld, they won't be able to upgrade security like DP WOrld. And DP World won't have to give us access to the stuff they were going to give us access to, and they won't cooperate like they would have.
I bet this won't mollify the opponents of the deal, but in any case we will be less secure.
If in the next 5 years we have a terrorist act through these terminals, after DP World transfers the operations to a U.S. company, I assume all the republicans who voted yesterday will resign their offices.
And all those Freepers who said we would be perfectly safe so long as UAE doesn't run the ports will all publicly apologize and pay compensation to the victims.
Good points.
Brit Hume: Dubai Ports has companies all over the world and will sell off the US piece to this deal. It will sell off to a US entity.
It's not clear that a US entity exists to do this work. One might have to be created.
Dubai doesn't want to have a fire sale so it will take a while to execute this. It will give Republicans the cover they need to back off on this.
Me: So to the person on this thread trying to pretend that "we were lied to" that an American company couldn't handle this transaction, I guess you were wrong. Again.
Aren't you? That's exactly what you wished for yesterday....
----Dumb damn bastards.----
Damn dirty apes!
-Dan
BTW, I will note that it seems John Warner took action and got DP World to do this -- and I bet the action yesterday by the house made it a lot harder.
Just keep repeating: Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace...
Congress and "the people" should honor their agreements and not break their own word after a mere 6 days.
If you don't think the UAE has been beneficial to us in the WOT, then you aren't paying attention.
Take your other issue to an immigration thread.
Why are you trashing the American company already? They haven't even announced who's taking over the contract.
Some seem to forget, we are American's and aren't afraid. If we are hurt by this then we were too dependent on them to begin with. That said, we need to give them a save face out.
Stop that. Your confusing them with facts again. It's harder to hate people if you know the truth.....
agree 100%
So you just follow blindly!!
At this point in time, we have the Chinese and Japanese holding up our government bonds and GSE's. We have the ME holding up our oil needs. We have Vincente Fox and Mexico holding us hostage with our border. And...we have a globalist corporatist government (on both sides, I might add) which has a long range plan to incorporate everyone's economy and labor (don't forget fungible labor which is a key element in globalism-hello Gold Card)which eventually, so they believe, will result in a happy world of intertwined relationships and no war.
To which I say: Been there. Done that...and it doesn't work.
It just depends upon your viewpoint; global or sovereign..
This whole code of honor at all costs, let's kill the Jews, we hate the infidel West except when its propping up our despotic little regime crap has to end.
If the only positive consequence of this debacle is a realization among the American public that someone who was born in Manchester and is a member of the Church of England and someone who's a Muslim born in the arid desert are not interchangeable entities, then it would have served its purpose.
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.