| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dubai flap threatens other investment in US |
| 2006-03-03 |
| The political firestorm over Arab management of six U.S. ports threatened to widen on Thursday after a senior House Republican said he wanted foreign firms to sell their investments in American ports, electricity plants and other infrastructure critical to U.S. security. California Republican Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said foreign investments in such areas should be "rolled back" along with the pending $6.85 billion deal involving Dubai Ports World, which is state-owned by the United Arab Emirates. Hunter was scathing in his assessment of Dubai Ports World's plan to buy Britain-based P&O, including its American port assets, saying the UAE had been "instrumental" in the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components. In the Senate, lawmakers of both parties also sought to tighten rules governing foreign investment. They expressed dismay at what they saw as Bush administration carelessness in quickly approving the Dubai Ports World deal to manage six U.S. ports without considering implications for national security. "Everything in this country can't be for sale," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said as his panel began questioning Bush administration officials on the Dubai ports deal. The Alabama Republican said the law should be clarified to take national security into account. "While I strongly support our open investment policy and recognize that it is vital to our national economic interest, I do not believe it should stand at any cost," Shelby said. U.S. President George W. Bush says security concerns are unwarranted because the UAE is a strong ally, and he has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the deal. The Bush administration in January approved the Dubai Ports World deal but agreed over the weekend to give it a 45-day review after criticism from lawmakers who say they are worried terrorists could take advantage of the arrangement to infiltrate U.S. ports. On the House side of Capitol Hill, Hunter told reporters that under the legislation he planned, the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security would list infrastructure critical to national security. Foreign companies would then be required to divest their holdings in it, he said. Several lawmakers from both parties in the House on Thursday introduced a companion bill to Senate legislation that would ban foreign governments -- but not private foreign companies -- from controlling operations at U.S. ports. It is aimed at barring state-owned companies like Dubai Ports World. Legislation already exists in the House and the Senate to review the Dubai Ports World deal and give Congress the ability to disapprove it. Dubai Ports World officials told Hunter's Armed Services Committee the deal should be completed next Monday or Tuesday, pending the outcome of any court appeals in Britain. A British judge ruled on Thursday the $6.85 billion takeover could go ahead. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS, the interagency panel that OK'd the ports deal, would start its 45-day review when the company filed papers requesting it. Company executives told House lawmakers that Dubai Ports World would abide by any new CFIUS conditions "that would be reasonable" and also applied to competitors. Officials confirmed on Thursday that another UAE company, Dubai International Capital, was under CFIUS review for its planned $1.24 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd. It operates in nine U.S. locations and makes parts for U.S. defense contractors. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #24 Anyway, enough. If you deem I'm not adding anything of value then that's my cue, I guess. I didn't come here to argue with people I generally like and agree with. I wish everyone the best.I> Rafael, why leave? You don't have to argue or "win" a debate. case in point. »:-) |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-03 23:32 |
| #23 Well knock me over with a feather! I didn't think you'd do it. You cherry-picked because you didn't like the sum of the piece. That is disingenuous. ...and I didn't like the sum of the piece because I knew it wasn't the whole story (and I provided supporting evidence). Happens every day on Rantburg. Anyway, enough. If you deem I'm not adding anything of value then that's my cue, I guess. I didn't come here to argue with people I generally like and agree with. I wish everyone the best. I'd like to leave with this: a joint GROM/SEAL photo, as proof that GROM was never officially involved in Iraq! (The guys holding the American flag are not Americans) Probably the worst kept Polish secret ever :-) |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 19:46 |
| #22 Antlers put on by the misses are way heavy! LOL! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-03 19:40 |
| #21 I love the willfully disingenuous and dense. You claim to have posted under another nym, which I referenced in my previous response. Maybe so. If so, then I was mistaken about you being a fucking liar on that point and, in that case, I am terribly sorry. Changes none of the rest, however. You pointed out an alternative interpretation. Right. You cherry-picked because you didn't like the sum of the piece. That is disingenuous. Look it up. Then you play the equally disingenuous card of implying any response from me would proves I'm a prick. Right. You're a fucking coward and logic pimp. I disagree with many posts. I do not respond to all of them. You're speshul. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-03 19:18 |
| #20 I'll settle for a paraphrase :-) |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 19:16 |
| #19 lotp would never use such language, Rafael. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-03 19:12 |
| #18 I was just wondering, because yesterday after doing some checking, you labeled me a fucking liar (your italics). I'm pretty sure you went back to that thread again today, if not, then you should because I added some new information. So, will you admit your mistake? Are you big enough to do it? where you were an asshole fuckwit disingenuous dick who cherry-picked to suit your preferred view in spite of the weight of the article pointing to a far less optimistic situation I was pointing out an alternative interpretation, mainly because the article painted a far gloomier picture than what other data would suggest. Call it cherry-picking if you want. Btw, let me correct you on something...an asshole fuckwit disingenuous dick is anyone who disagrees with you. Cherry-picking has nothing to do with it. You know what...your opinion is actually meaningless as it applies to that thread. You didn't exactly offer anything of value, unless you count your insults. Now, if lotp would say that I'm an asshole fuckwit disingenuous dick, then that would carry some weight! |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 19:06 |
| #17 Lol. Some folks not be too smart. That be you. Wotta surprise. Okay, let's party, asshole. I've been accused of many things - being nuanced is not among them - or are you saying it? I've been told that bludgeon is more my style. I defer to the master for the hair-splitting shit. Are you a fucking liar? LOL. Since you're being cutesy, think yourself to be witty when witless is far closer to the truth, and playing the asshole, yet again, I'll ask to which instance are you referring? Yesterday's thread - where you were an asshole fuckwit disingenuous dick who cherry-picked to suit your preferred view in spite of the weight of the article pointing to a far less optimistic situation - or one of the other infamous pointless dithering threads where you played the NuanceMeister fool in defense of idiocy? Re: the nym change - how convenient. Does it add substance to you or your posts? No. Does it make you something? Well... You see, you've been a fucking something for quite awhile. Your specialty seems to be defending the logically defenseless (for good reason) position. Our very own Don Quixote. Mildly amusing at times, but in the end a total moron who's chosen to waste his time in futile and pointless pursuits. That you don't recognize what a dipshit many consider you to be is hysterical. I think you're a classic nothing. No content. No value. Nothing to add. Notable for subtraction, in fact. Just another irritant in a world filled with substantive threats and issues. Another vacuous cranial black hole with zero original thought and a fucked world view. But no offense intended, of course. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-03 18:34 |
| #16 Who? .com? I might agree with you there. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 18:29 |
| #15 "caution, slow children" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-03 18:27 |
| #14 You didn't answer. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 18:25 |
| #13 Lol. You remind me of the people who don't read the warning signs - and never really learn anything. You wanna play, today? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-03 18:10 |
| #12 BTW, am I still a fucking liar??? Did you check? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 18:02 |
| #11 Yesssss. You're a hoot .com! Full of nuance an' everything! |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-03 17:57 |
| #10 VBS - You're really not too bright, are you? Here, I'll help you out with a 1st-grade level explanation. What got you excited is not inconsistent and here's why: The UAE deal on the ports, on which you have The comment that sent you aflutter is a desirable reality. That means I really do wish we could alter the bad reality and move on to a better reality, such as I described. You know what playing fair means? Good. I believe it would probably cause a few of those unfair countries to eliminate some of their stupid restrictions so they could continue making money here in deep-pockets land. Wouldn't that be nice? It does make sense. Trust me on this, k? That we do not have a simple law on the books in the US to impose upon foreigners in the US the same standards that we endure when in their countries is a shame. It makes sense. I've said it several times before here on the 'Burg, including a few days ago on this topic. It is a desirable thing. To your immense surprise, I'm sure, we suffer restrictions with countries that aren't Arab, too. Why even some of our bestest friends play unfairly with us in this way. Sad. Yes, I agree. Here's a tissue. But sometimes life isn't fair. I realize you're a babe in swaddling clothes who's never been further than the corner store - and that was with Mommy trailing 20 ft behind you, but it's true. But we can change things with a little common sense and some gumption. Do you know what gumption is? Well, we'll save that for another day. We're probably reaching your limits for one day already. I've been to some of the places you read about and consider nasty, full of mean people, really icky. Not just visited, but lived there. So when I post something about it, I actually know what I'm talking about, you see. There, there, don't cry. Unlike you, I'm not a total fuckwit cheesedick wannabee asstard who's stuck on fucking stupid for life. Gosh, I mean you have alot to learn and I'm here to help. It's just the kind of guy I am, no need to thank me. I hope you enjoyed this little talk. I love these quiet little moments before the storm, don't you? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-03 17:08 |
| #9 What set you off, Vincat? Got some investments at risk? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-03-03 13:50 |
| #8 "I would like to see reciprocal rules. If a country restricts US business and individuals in their country, then the same exact limitations should apply to them here." Well then...you need look no further than the UAE and other Arab entities! Hoisted? Petard? Anyone? Save your infantile schoolyard insults for someone that might be impressed or wounded, I'm NOT, that person. I hereby label you, .comical! |
| Posted by: Vinkat Bala Subrumanian 2006-03-03 13:31 |
| #7 Free trade must be fair trade, and that requires everyone plays by the same rules. Restricting vital infrastructure from foreign investment is necessary or we are open to extortion from some unfriendlies with both lots of money, oil, and nukes. This almost smells something like the UN and other Eurocrats would cook up. We need the foreign investment boost to the economy, but this deal as is leaves national security and our economy more vulnerable. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-03-03 13:00 |
| #6 the UAE had been "instrumental" in the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components. Some substantiation of these allegations would be nice. Do all of you mean to say that if the above were positively proven, your own positions in this issue would not change one bit? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-03 11:56 |
| #5 What an idiot. Doesn't he understands that USA mustn't hurt the feelings of its Arab allies? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-03-03 08:40 |
| #4 A scathing" critique from the head of the House Armed Services Committee, is about as weighty a sandbag as there is. Rep. Hunter has been paying close attention to talk radio. |
| Posted by: Listen To Dogs 2006-03-03 07:25 |
| #3 I agree, RWV, though I have never directly supported him - until this I thought he was a good guy with both oars in the water. I would like to see reciprocal rules. If a country restricts US business and individuals in their country, then the same exact limitations should apply to them here. If they're willing to join the 21st century and open their markets and allow ownership and individual freedoms, then so will we. The current situation is all one-sided and sucks, big-time. What I saw in Saudi was just nuts. The Saudi company "owners" were merely well-connected ultra-fat-cats. Worthless parasites. The laws also required the "joint venture company" to hire Saudis in a strict quota (don't know the sliding scale specifics, sorry) to the number of ex-pats employed. They did not even show up, much less work. They got a check, same as me and the rest of the guys -- for doing nothing. I was told that them not showing up was actually preferred - since all they would do is sit around jabbering, drink all the coffee, and make endless long-distance calls. This is going to get out of hand because the political pull is irresistible and popular resentment has been building for a long long time. And there will be repercussions - mostly unanticipated and many very negative - which will end up hurting us more than any Arabs. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-03 02:03 |
| #2 I've been thinking of buying Halliburton. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-03-03 01:42 |
| #1 I know and like Duncan Hunter. I contribute regularly to his campaigns, but this makes us sound like a banana republic. Third world countries routinely put restrictions on foreign ownership. Whenever the Government interferes with business, trade, and the economy to make political points, we all suffer. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-03-03 00:28 |
