# America to DP World: Take a hike!



## Guest (Mar 9, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11741617/ 

The article has the details, but basically the US Congress blocked the deal from going through. DP World has to sell all its US assets to an American company. So much for "free market capitalism"....


----------



## Paul305 (Dec 24, 2005)

US Congress didn't block it. Earlier today, congressional leaders met with Bush to tell him that they were ready to block it, but they had not voted yet. It seems that DP World decided on its own accord to sell its American assets. Republican Senator John Warner read a press release from DP World on the senate floor today that said they would divest themselves of American investments.

Now I suppose the ports will go to Halliburton because they are the only American port regulator that could handle such a contract. Also, if Halliburton gets this deal it will almost match their massive security deal in Iraq ($6.8 Billion < $7.0 Billion). So, I guess the GOP is the winner in the end.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ $6.8 Billion is the deal between DP World an P&O. The US ports makes less then 10% of the P&O operation.


----------



## Fatty Melon (Mar 3, 2006)

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.


----------



## Paul305 (Dec 24, 2005)

AltinD said:


> ^^ $6.8 Billion is the deal between DP World an P&O. The US ports makes less then 10% of the P&O operation.


I though that the $6.8 Billion was just for the U.S. ports. Could someone clear this up for me and find out the exact numbers. P&O is surely worth more than $6.8 Billion but they aren't selling all of their assets. Also, I couldn't imagine the ports selling for only $680 million (even though most of the port deals involve only certain terminals). It just seems too small of a number...


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2006)

Paul305 said:


> US Congress didn't block it. Earlier today, congressional leaders met with Bush to tell him that they were ready to block it, but they had not voted yet. It seems that DP World decided on its own accord to sell its American assets. Republican Senator John Warner read a press release from DP World on the senate floor today that said they would divest themselves of American investments.
> 
> Now I suppose the ports will go to Halliburton because they are the only American port regulator that could handle such a contract. Also, if Halliburton gets this deal it will almost match their massive security deal in Iraq ($6.8 Billion < $7.0 Billion). So, I guess the GOP is the winner in the end.


Congress was going to pass a bill blocking the deal, but Bush said he would veto the bill, but the veto was going to be overturned by a 2/3 vote. So obviously the veto would be pointless. So in a way, Congress blocked the deal through threats and counter-threats and finally the Company decided to sell its AMERICAN assets. I'm sure the US port terminals only make a fraction of the $6.8 billion dollar deal which included terminals in other countries.


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

well, if they don't want..

we don't need those ports so desperately, P&O will still be owned by DPW anyway.


----------



## Paul305 (Dec 24, 2005)

I did some research and you guys were dead on. This deal was a lot smaller than I had thought. In December of 2004, DP World bought the US port company CSX for $1 billion. This CSX deal was much bigger but it didn't get any publicity. The more I think about this, the more I hate American politicians. They just marginalized our relations in the Middle East even more so that they could increase their chances of winning the 2006 ellection. If they truely believed the P&O aquisition was a threat, they would have spoken out against the CSX deal as well. :bash:


----------



## DUBAI (Aug 24, 2004)

Edit: Sorry i got in trouble over the info i posted.

if you read it, ignore it.


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

edit


----------



## DUBAI (Aug 24, 2004)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html

Check out bill o'reilly's comments on the issiue. I finaly have found somthing hes said which isnt insane!

he even quotes al ethihad!!


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

I am pissed of this pure racism.


----------



## DUBAI (Aug 24, 2004)

Yeah so was I.

but its probably for the best they dropped out.

A lot of america isnt happy either. 

expect a huge event in the next 6 months.

Bush will move to repair UAE -US relations.


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

I too think that getting rid of it is a good idea.

The UAE has always been a peacful country with peacefull people, we dont seek trouble :tongue2:


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

smussuw said:


> I am pissed of this pure racism.



Is it "racism" if the UAE doesn't care to sell Israel critical security assetts? I would like to see that happen in a million years.

It has nothing to do with the UAE or the company supporting or not supporting terrorism. The simple fact is that there is heightened amount of terrorism in the region (and much of it directed at the U.S.). To worry about infiltraters despite the best efforts of the UAE, Dubai, or DP World because of the region it is in (which even the most headstrong wouldn't deny their is above average amount of terrorism in the region) is not racism but an assesment of security risk.


----------



## palindrome (Nov 25, 2004)

Well said^ nomarandlee. Me, as a 19 year old american, to be perfectly honest, until this deal, did not know that our ports were even contracted out to the best bidder. To me anyways, it is not so much the issue that dubai would be controlling the ports, it's the issue that america isn't. I think there is a statistic somewhere saying less than 30% of the containers coming into this country are checked through security. This along with the fact that our border remains so open really pisses me off. We pay so much for the iraq war, when i would much have rather seen the money going torwards port/border security. 

Now i can confindently say that this deal wouldn't have even made the first page of the buisness section of the boston globe if it were some euro country leasing the ports, so i do admit there is a touch of prejudice. But please understand, from my perspective anyways, this is a matter of security not racism. Personally i have no problem with dubai taking over the ports as i see dubai as a great city, and future major economic world player.


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

not convinced, it is racism

It is a proof too that USA is hypocratic when it comes to globalization.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Tell me smussuw, would UAE sell its ports to Israel, yes or no? Would UAE sell its national airline to Israel? Or even India or Russia? Why do you feel that ports are owed to the UAE? Is EVERYTHING open for sale in the UAE to EVERYONE as well?


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

will USA sell anything to Iran or Syria? No, because they are enemies, same apply to the UAE and Israel.

Why do we have to sell our companies to anyone if we didnt want to? The ports were already operated by UK owned company so there is no point in saying will the UAE bla bla bla. 

No not everything is sale, there are restrictions for the americans to buy shares in the UAE too, but that isnt the subject. USA is the one advertising globalization (as it will benifit from it the most) not UAE so they should be the first to stick to it.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I don't understand the "you would not do the same to Israel" argument, because, even if the UAE would not do the same, we should be better than the using Israel as an excuse to avoid progress routine that Middle Eastern government use to drum up popular support.

I am frankly disgusted by this protectionist and clearly xenophobic response by the Republican party which illustrates how far they are off from reality.

uke:


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

nomarandlee said:


> Tell me smussuw, would UAE sell its ports to Israel, yes or no? Would UAE sell its national airline to Israel? Or even India or Russia? Why do you feel that ports are owed to the UAE? Is EVERYTHING open for sale in the UAE to EVERYONE as well?


yes the UAE-Israel situation is a political situation, not a racist situation. the official position of the UAE government is that it will not recognize Israel until a Palestinian state is established.


Nobody is accusing the USA of racism because it doesnt allow Iran, Syria or N. Korea to do business with it. like the UAE-Israel situation, the US-Iran situation is political, not racial


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

DonQui said:


> I am frankly disgusted by this protectionist and clearly xenophobic response by the Republican party which illustrates how far they are off from reality.
> 
> uke:


and the democratic party too. both parties are guilty of this political posturing.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

^^^ :yes:

This is what is angering me about this situation. We talk about how we distinguish terrorist Muslims from the VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of peaceful Muslims, yet, we lump them all together as an excuse to engage in protectionism, saying that handing control of a company to an Arab-based business = ease of terrorism.

uke:


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

Nomarandlee, don't waste your breath. This forum does not welcome such trollish things such as facts. Like this:


1. 9/11 financed through UAE
2. 1 of 3 countries to recognize the Taliban
3. Known ties to bin Laden
4. Boycott of an entire country, based simply on spite

Executives from DP World were interviewed on CNN and basically made fools of themselves. Rather than even attempt to answer any of the questions about terrorism and the boycott of Israel, they're just like "but we have shiny buildings!!!" Nope, sorry, noone cares.


What will the response to this be? They won't refute any of those arguments, they'll just call us troll and racist. Watch Nomarandlee and Palindrome, you know that's exactly what they'll do.


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

another troll here.

Would we ask Microsoft about the Iraqi war? :weird:


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

smussuw said:


> another troll here.
> 
> Would we ask Microsoft about the Iraqi war? :weird:



HAHAHAHAA


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

DonQui said:


> This is what is angering me about this situation. We talk about how we distinguish terrorist Muslims from the VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of peaceful Muslims, yet, we lump them all together as an excuse to engage in protectionism, saying that handing control of a company to an Arab-based business = ease of terrorism.



Good point, but you forgot one key element: The VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of Muslims didn't seem to speak out against the fatal riots over those cartoons. This leads the American public, and let's face it, most of the world, to believe that they were okay with these actions. Whether or not they despised the cartoons are irrelevant - people died over this and we have yet to here an outcry from the peaceful Muslim community condeming it. 

The port deal coming right after these riots was just disastrous for the whole deal.


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

smussuw said:


> another troll here.
> 
> Would we ask Microsoft about the Iraqi war? :weird:






> What will the response to this be? They won't refute any of those arguments, they'll just call us troll and racist. Watch Nomarandlee and Palindrome, you know that's exactly what they'll do.





Thanks for proving me right, bigot.


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

BabeMagnet2000 said:


> Good point, but you forgot one key element: The VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of Muslims didn't seem to speak out against the fatal riots over those cartoons. This leads the American public, and let's face it, most of the world, to believe that they were okay with these actions. Whether or not they despised the cartoons are irrelevant - people died over this and we have yet to here an outcry from the peaceful Muslim community condeming it.
> 
> The port deal coming right after these riots was just disastrous for the whole deal.


riots in Dubai = 0
this is one of my chief criticisms of the American of the port issue. they cannot look at the UAE independently, for some reason, Dubai Ports World is being held accountable for riots in Lebanon and Pakistan


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

ur moving into a totally different subject that is why ur trolling BabeMagnet2000, we are talking about the DPW and the american racism.


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

BabeMagnet2000 said:


> Nomarandlee, don't waste your breath. This forum does not welcome such trollish things such as facts. Like this:
> 
> 
> 1. 9/11 financed through UAE
> ...


This is one thing i dont understand.
Why is it that hte UAE is accountable for being a financial and operational base for hte 9/11 hijackings and the US is not?

Dubai International Airport was a transit point for the 9/11 hijackers YES.
BUT, so were American airports. So was the US government for sponsoring the visas of the hijackers. So was the US government for allowing terrorists to withdraw money wired to them. So was teh US for training the terrorists how to fly planes into building. So was the US for allowing terrorists to board planes.

To me, the US ties to 9/11 are MUCH more serious than any ties the UAE had. I dont see the US Congress blocking American companies from operating American ports because of America's financial and operational support of the 9/11 hijackers


Watch their response Smussuw.


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

smussuw said:


> ur moving into a totally different subject that is why ur trolling BabeMagnet2000, we are talking about the DPW and the american racism.



How is it trolling? I'm asking legit questions and you're dodging them.

Two questions:

1. Does UAE truly condemn terrorism and the Islamic extremism that seems so rampant in Iraq and Iran?

2. How is it okay to call USA racist over security concerns while Israel is boycotted mostly on a religious basis?



Just so you know, I was all for the ports deal, UAE is a great ally and watching the boom is incredible and I'll vacation there (at the very least) in about 5 years when a lot of the construction is complete.


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

luv2bebrown said:


> This is one thing i dont understand.
> Why is it that hte UAE is accountable for being a financial and operational base for hte 9/11 hijackings and the US is not?
> 
> Dubai International Airport was a transit point for the 9/11 hijackers YES.
> ...




Good response, and I agree with you that just because things happen in a country it shouldn't be blamed on that country, common sense there. I think the whole thing got blocked simply because of bad timing, it's still possible for them to reconsider.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

BabeMagnet2000, please quit your trolling. -_-


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

BabeMagnet2000 said:


> 1. Does UAE truly condemn terrorism and the Islamic extremism that seems so rampant in Iraq and Iran?


no doubt about that.



> How is it okay to call USA racist over security concerns while Israel is boycotted mostly on a religious basis?


It is a political problem like the one between Iran, Syria and the US.

I think it is obvious that security has nothing to do with the deal.


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

BabeMagnet2000 said:


> How is it trolling? I'm asking legit questions and you're dodging them.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Does UAE truly condemn terrorism and the Islamic extremism that seems so rampant in Iraq and Iran?


absolutely. 100%. you have no better ally in the region than the UAE. terrorism and Islamic extremism is simply 100% detrimental to the interests of the UAE which is ECONOMIC growth and diversification. political instability, increased defense spending, divestment are all problems caused by terrorism in the region.


----------



## Ben_Burj (Aug 28, 2005)

am i the only one when reading BabeMagnet2000 post that is thinking that if some one stupid as bush was able to make it during the last elections it is because a big numbero f the US population is as stupid as bush


----------



## Ben_Burj (Aug 28, 2005)

BabeMagnet2000 said:


> 1. Does UAE truly condemn terrorism and the Islamic extremism that seems so rampant in Iraq and Iran?



Please don't take about terrorism while your beloved country is practicing state terrorism since it is existence. correct me but it is the USA that was created on the principle of ethnic cleansing and not the UAE. it is the USA that financed and trained death squand in south and central america and not the UAE and again it is the USA that was always a threat to world peace and not the UAE


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> smussuw]will USA sell anything to Iran or Syria? No, because they are enemies, same apply to the UAE and Israel.


 Yea, and because even if Israel and the UAE did normalise relations the UAE never would because it would be a security risk. For the U.S. some think it is a security risk where Al-Quida sympathies are a good deal about higher in the region then almost anywhere else (not making claims that most or a majority in the UAE or Gulf do but the pecentage is undoutably higher then most places in the world).



> Why do we have to sell our companies to anyone if we didnt want to? The ports were already operated by UK owned company so there is no point in saying will the UAE bla bla bla.


 Why does the USA have to as well? The U.S. is not allowed to judge its own security risk and measurments for themselves? Maybe you don't think their is a security risk but really that is something only the experts know and their was enough of a mixed analysis to warrent red flags on the deal.




> No not everything is sale, there are restrictions for the americans to buy shares in the UAE too, but that isnt the subject. USA is the one advertising globalization (as it will benifit from it the most) not UAE so they should be the first to stick to it.


 Just because the U.S. endorses globalization doesn't mean that everything is for sale by anyone in the U.S. either. The airport security, ports, nuclear reactors, military hardware etc (the U.S. does this but I don't agree with this in many circumstances), and other vital national security assets should not be under forigen influence and should not go to the highest bidder. Comeing from a troubled region where even the same terrorist threaten the native regimes and the U.S. alike means that the U.S. has to have even higher scrutiny when security assets come into play combined with the region.

I also don't agree with natoinalised companies from ANYWHERE buying key strategic assets in the U.S. That is a side issue though in regards to the debate.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> luv2bebrown]yes the UAE-Israel situation is a political situation, not a racist situation. the official position of the UAE government is that it will not recognize Israel until a Palestinian state is established.


 If we are to be honest it is REAL hard to envision even if Israel and the UAE normalising relations that the UAE would EVER let Israel (especially an Israeli government owned company) buy any critical assets in the UAE. And I wouldn't blame them for doing so. It would be a security issue of great importance.

The U.S. has similar issues in regards to security with selling ports in a part of the region where militantancy towards the U.S. is very high (even if it nowhere near the majority in the UAE or even the whole Gulf). Yes, the U.S. and UAE have better relations then Israel does with the UAE (or any Arab country) but the security issue is still there if you beleive terrorism is an issue. And one can say with sincerity that terrorism is an issue even if the UAE or Dubai Ports World is not involved in the terrorism buisness. 

If Hindu extremist from India had made NUMEROUS attacks on the UAE and their had even been plans and contingecies by thoes extremist to get their hands on and use WMD (as Al-Quida has expressed an intreast in doing so) and using the ports as a method of transport then one could very well understand if the UAE was a bit nervous about selling its ports to an Indian government port company. ANd they would have a right to be nervous even if they had good relations with India and beleived in the Indian company.

Of course it is a hypothetical but the scenario is the same just using differant charechters.




> Nobody is accusing the USA of racism because it doesnt allow Iran, Syria or N. Korea to do business with it. like the UAE-Israel situation, the US-Iran situation is political, not racial.


 But you are thinking that just because a goverment or company is friendly and well intentioned that alleviates all concern on the issue of security. When talking about shawdowy terrorist groups who infiltrate instead of direct operations those facts become a moot point. And their are a lot in the region that would like to do the U.S. and Americans harm. One coud go back and forth on if it is justfied or not or if that is the U.S. fault but the fact is they do and they are real and many live in that region.

Is it fair that the UAE or a Dubai company has to pay a price for that fact? No, it is not fair. Is it racist? For those who want to be utterly dismissive of all security issue, realities, or concerns then it would be easy to make that claim then it is ALL about race/religion.


----------



## HARD (Oct 5, 2005)

It's abvouis racism, The US citizins are totaly brain washed...the statments were shown in thier media were "Arab controling US ports" .. "Muslims are in charge of major US ports" ...etc is just to remind ppl in US that muslims & arabs our enemies.. 

Most of US porst are managed by forginers and yet they say nothing 

Pathetic how the fear factor played big game in 9/11 and how they are using it now

I hope our govemenment kick thier troops out of jabal Ali & out of al dafra airbase & we will see how they cry like babies

they want UAE to be thier friend and in return we get nothing as if it is one way street


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

livni said:


> Arab double standard is wining how bad their image is in the west, and then holding mass "anti-west" , "anti-u.s." , "burn embassies over stupid cartoons" rallies.
> 
> Arab double standard is trying to pay terror groups that did 9-11 and after that to be saying how supportive they are of the war on terror, and then invite US troops and a global coalition in 1991 against saddam and then go against U.S troops operate in Iraq to bring down the same saddam, and then support terrorist groups in iraq and then say how helping they are to the US and then teach at school that the US are trying to destroy islam.
> 
> and then say they want peace in the region and then finace terror groups working to destroy it and then say they are open to global investments and then one day take away as state property in a islamic revolution like iran..


you realize that Arabs are different from country to country right? you have a village idiot/black + white approach to looking at issues. 

you should read red riding hood and cinderella - like your comments, they are also some good fairy tales

heck read the chronicles of narnia - thats some crazy fantasy dude! almost as crazy as your ideas about Arabs!


----------



## Naz UK (Jan 28, 2006)

Livni, please speak English. This is an English forum. Kling-on is only spoken on "Star-Trek Lovers.com" forum. And shouldn't you be doing your homework or reading up on trigonometry or something? Get to bed, you've got school in the morning. And stop surfing for porn....you've barely reached puberty yet, you cretin.


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

LOL 3rd great comment by Naz UK, you are improving my friend


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

Just wanted to put in my 2cents......

Im an american, and i live in miami which is one of the ports dp world wants to run.
i personally have no problem with dp world administrating the port, and i really dont get whats the big deal..the media here is blowwing up the subject to a huge proportion when i see it a minor issue,its the uae company not a company run by osama bin laden.
anyways the only problem i have is that the company is not an american company meaning its profits would most likely be spent in the uae not in the US.


----------



## Dubai-Lover (Jul 4, 2004)

what i'm convinced of now is that it becomes an election campaign issue since it becomes more and more obvious almost every american has been fox and cnn brainwashed (just check their headlines and news hno: )

when it comes to power and elections politicians do everything!!!!!!
it is even more incredible the us ports didn't intervene before the deal started! there were 2 competitors and it was most likely dubai will win as well

why come up with this shit after the deal?????? you could have easily avoided all this bullshit


there is something seriously wrong going on in this country!!!!


----------



## expat_marla (Feb 22, 2005)

^^ there is something (actually many things) seriously wrong with the US. However, I find it interesting that the world expects all americans to be aware of everything that is going on with every operation of government, politics, private enterprise, etc...

Do you honestly beleive that the average person of ANY country is aware of what goes on in *every *aspect of government? Do you know everything that goes on within your government? I readily admit I don't. 

Things seriously wrong with the U.S. include (IMHO)
*the healthcare system
*ease of access to guns
*George Bush's administration


But to put forth that what is _seriously _wrong with the US is that citizens question, when made aware that an entity other than the US government is (and has been) resposnsible for its ports is, again IMHO a bit rich.


----------



## BabeMagnet2000 (Nov 18, 2005)

Dubai-Lover said:


> what i'm convinced of now is that it becomes an election campaign issue since it becomes more and more obvious almost every american has been fox and cnn brainwashed (just check their headlines and news hno: )
> 
> when it comes to power and elections politicians do everything!!!!!!
> it is even more incredible the us ports didn't intervene before the deal started! there were 2 competitors and it was most likely dubai will win as well



Bush & Co. have been so successful in brainwashing America to hate all things Arab that it backfired on them.

I gotta give CNN some credit though, they continually showed the good of Dubai, with some glowing interviews with some executives and they showed off Burj Al Arab with its manager. 

Don't think that politicians actually care about security, they care about looking like they care about security - remember, elections are only a few months away!


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

^^ agree CNN does an.. well at least not biased job, i won't say they do a good one but they have some good reports etc.
judging from what i see at CNN intl of course, not sure if it is the same in the US.


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

personally, i think CNN international and BBC world are EXCELLENT news sources.

the domestic CNN Headline News is quite poor. it is on the same level as local news channels in the US, only a little bit flashier.

hahaha i would even prefer to watch the old Dubai channel 33 news over CNN headline news


----------



## Alle (Sep 23, 2005)

"there is something seriously wrong going on in this country!!!!"

it has been for quite a while, poor americans (i mean it there tax money is just getting wasted).


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

luv2bebrown said:


> personally, i think CNN international and BBC world are EXCELLENT news sources.
> 
> the domestic CNN Headline News is quite poor. it is on the same level as local news channels in the US, only a little bit flashier.
> 
> hahaha i would even prefer to watch the old Dubai channel 33 news over CNN headline news


so there is difference between CNN intl (for example Europe) and the US CNN?

do they have Inside the Middle East in the US?


----------



## gfunk (Mar 30, 2005)

Congratulations. For today is the day of victory for the communists who adore state control, terrorists who snicker when America casts away its allies, and opportunist senators who manipulate the US populace to serve their own needs.

Today, both the Emirati people and the American people have lost. Today for one of the first times in my life, I feel that America has begun a spiral of racism and overprotectiveness that will affect it greatly in the future. They could have placed any restriction or rule on this deal, but the choice was to ban the sale, instead of being proactive creative and intelligent, and actually controlling it to serve your interests. You could have forced DP to make your ports 10 times secure than they once were. But you didnt. People will think twice before doing buisness with America. They will think twice the next time an American says "We believe in freedom of trade". They will be weary of opportunist senators and overpatriotic uneducated people screaming on the radio how much they dont want the deal to commence because of the race of the people involved. But this does not concern your Senators, when asked about the Implications of it, as Gulf Airlines buy Boeing Planes in the Hundreds, one went to the length of saying

"Boeing will continue to operate with or without Gulf orders"

But what does that mean to him ? To him it means that when he retires, Boeing will still be there. But to you Americans, it means that people will lose jobs. This is very much like the swindling and career opportunism that went on in the Roman Senate, the last International Empire.

Please enlighten me. Do the American people think that they can win the war on terror by themselves ? Did such an insane over-estimate ever exist in the heads of those who have no idea about strategy ? If America is to win this war, it needs every single ally that makes himself available.

What would happen to the American war effort, if one day the UAE ceased to exist ? We help and stand by the US, and this is what we get ? You attempt to embarass this country in front of the world, because all it ever wanted to do is to become great not by killing, but by trading ?

And what is your argument ? 2 UAE passport holders that participated in the 9/11 attacks? Do you think we ordered them to do that, or wanted them to ? Then why are we responsible for it?
And then what is your other argument ? That George tenet of the CIA said that the UAE government was meeting with Bin Laden ? Remember Operation Infinite Reach, the Bombing of the Al Shifa Factory, 5 years of not finding bin laden, 3 years of not finding Zarqawi, 9 months of not Finding Saddam Hussein and you have the Audacity to say that 'we think that bin laden was with the UAE government' and to say that your Identification capabilities are proper?. I could say "Oh, Hillary Clinton met with Bin Laden in Dearborn Michigan" It would be a lie, but if my name was George Tenet, the media would pick up on it immediately.

Whats your other Argument ? That we are Muslim or Arab ? There are 300 Million Arabs. There are 1.2 Billion Muslims. If we were such a terroristic race, then why isnt there a world war ? How many of these people do you think are terrorists ? Of the 300 Million ? I will allow you to over estimate 300,000. Even that number is ridiculously enormous, probably a 10 fold estimate. Meaning that in every one thousand Arabs and Muslims, there would be one of them which has had connections with terrorism. And if your definition of a terrorist race is like that, then I would seriously ask you to reconsider your international alliances.

The Final argument is that we would endanger your country. We my friends have a history of cooperating with the Israelis in our ports. We do not even officially recognize the Israelis. The Israelis who are not only 10 times better than you in HUMINT, but that have one of the best Intelligence agencies in the world, pound for pound far better than the CIA which has gotten outsmarted by the Soviets, the Israelis, and even Bin Laden.

Today Bin Laden snickers at us all, Americans and Emiratis


----------



## Dubai_Steve (Jan 11, 2005)

Washington, D.C. - As DP World was hammering out the details of its purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation and the rights to operate some U.S. ports last fall, a far smaller deal was moving steadily forward--for a New York company to own and run a Dubai marina.

Island Capital Group, a New York real estate investment company, announced in December that it would team up with a Dubai property developer to build and operate luxury marina facilities along the Dubai waterfront. Island Capital is controlled by Andrew Farkas, a member of a prominent New York Jewish family. As part of the deal, Island Global Yachting, an affiliate of Island Capital Group, opened an office in Dubai to oversee the design and construction of 40,000 slips for pleasure boats and manage the cleaning and operation of the docks.

The deal received blasé treatment in the Dubai press. No eyebrows were raised over its Jewish-American backer, despite widespread hostility in the Middle East toward Israel and that nation's treatment of Palestinians. Awash with foreign investment, the bustling United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is its most advanced member, has tried to avoid getting bogged down by that issue.

Elie Finegold, president of Island Global Yachting, summed up his impressions of Dubai from his frequent travels there in connection with the deal: "To go to Dubai is to walk into one of the most free and open business environments in the world."

How different must Dubai's perceptions be of the U.S. in the wake of the blowup of the ports deal. It is too early to gauge the full impact on American business ties with the region. But apart from stocks and bonds, Arab investment in the U.S. is a small slice of the total pie.

Of the $1.5 trillion in foreign direct investment in the U.S., only about $4 billion comes from Arab countries. Edward M. Graham, an economist at the Institute for International Economics in Washington, says Europe, Canada and Japan, the biggest sources of foreign direct investment in the U.S., may not be too discouraged by the ports flap because they will note the deal's special circumstances: It originated in the Middle East and was made in a sensitive industry.

Even so, the deal's blowup will sow a great deal of confusion. It is hard to find a precedent for such a furor in U.S. history. Back in the 1980s, there was a lot of concern over Japanese investment in the U.S., but nobody ever blocked a deal. Moreover, the hand-wringing over the Japanese was driven not so much by xenophobia as by bitterness over the lack of reciprocity. The Japanese market was sealed tighter than a drum, says Clyde Prestowitz Jr., a former Reagan Administration official and president of the Economic Strategy Institute. "It wasn't a two-way street," he notes.

Now, investors will be fuzzy over which deals are goers and which aren't. "It sets a standard, but it's hard to say what that standard is. What are the criteria going forward?" asks Dan Ickenson, a trade expert at the Cato Institute in Washington. He reckons that talks on a United Arab Emirates free-trade pact were postponed on Friday just after the DP World deal collapsed because negotiators were scratching their heads over what it meant for the trade agreement's investment provisions. 

This confusion is apparent simply from a snapshot of the Dubai government's presence in the U.S.

Istithmar, the venture capital arm of the Dubai government, recently bought the British company Inchcape Shipping Services, which restocks ships with food and oil in several U.S. ports and even has a contract with the U.S. Navy. Another arm of the state owns the Essex House on West 59th Street in New York.

Various attempts in Congress to erect barriers to foreign investment are reaping more uncertainty among investors.

Duncan Hunter, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is proceeding with legislation to force foreign companies to drop ownership of facilities considered vital to U.S. national security. Implementing this bill will be a "nightmare," says Graham, because of the extent of foreign investment across a range of sectors that the Homeland Security Department deems critical.

Some 16% of U.S. manufacturing is under foreign ownership. A number of foreign oil companies like Shell and British Petroleum (nyse: BP - news - people ) own refineries. And as the Dubai ports furor revealed, more than half of U.S. ports are controlled by foreign companies. "Hunter has no idea what he's getting into," says Graham. 

But aside from sowing confusion among investors and, potentially, a raft of unworkable economic policies, the furor over the ports deal and its ultimate demise is most damaging to American credibility in the Middle East.

"We are compromising our ability to encourage moderate Arab states to remain moderate," Ikenson says. Prestowitz is blunter: "[Dubai is] the very model of where we want the Middle East to go, and we are kicking them in the teeth.


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

Dubai_Steve said:


> Of the $1.5 trillion in foreign direct investment in the U.S., only about $4 billion comes from Arab countries.


:hilarious



> We are compromising our ability to encourage moderate Arab states to remain moderate," Ikenson says. Prestowitz is blunter: "[Dubai is] the very model of where we want the Middle East to go, and we are kicking them in the teeth.


the word moderate pisses me off.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2006)

^^ ya, when they say "moderate" it just means the country is a good slave of the USA i.e. like they always host American troops and aircraft.


----------



## smussuw (Feb 1, 2004)

I'd like to call them puppets


----------

