Duabi/UAE gives up ports to US firm

[slickdawg]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- United Arab Emirates-owned DP World said Thursday it would transfer its operations of American ports to a U.S. "entity" after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the firm's takeover deal was essentially dead on Capitol Hill.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship ... DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said in a statement.

----------------

[Octavian]

haha

[JohnnyMack]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!

[IronSooner]

You gotta be impressed with how calm and understanding UAE has come across in the whole deal. I wonder if they're really like that or as p*ssed off as it seems like they should be over it all.

[Ike]

oh well.
congress/FUD: 1
Free Trade: 0
I really thought the Prez was right on this one.

[yermom]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!

yeah, like that wasn't the initial plan

[Octavian]

Must.

Give.

Linky.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/...ports_security

[slickdawg]

Must.

Give.

Linky.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/...ports_security

My bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/...ity/index.html

[Hatfield]

You gotta be impressed with how calm and understanding UAE has come across in the whole deal. I wonder if they're really like that or as p*ssed off as it seems like they should be over it all.

they will still be making the money...they could care less about our fake outrage

[BoomerJack]

I am VERY INTERESTED in who/what this "U.S. entity" is that is going to buy/compensate/takeover the operations of the U.S. ports that were involved in this.

Also, on another site, I read that of the approx. $7 billion of the initial transaction, the U.S. ports were valued at about 10 per cent of the total and that the Dubai company was not going suffer a loss from the divestiture of those U.S. ports. That means that the U.S. buyer has to come up with $700 million to satisfy Dubai.

It's gonna be interesting to see who the players are and how the deal ends up being structured.

[Ike]

ya know, there's an interesting question within this whole episode...I wonder if Bush's continued rhetoric about security and the war on terror has caused (or exacerbated) an illogical, knee-jerk reaction towards anything middle eastern, that in essence doomed this whole shebang from the git-go? Or did we (not nessecarily you and me, but the general populous at large, and the congress-men and women that represent them) come about our xenophobia 100% naturally?

in other words, it's entirely possible that the Bush administration inadvertently brought the failure of this deal on themselves by continually stressing security and the war on terror above all things.

anyway, just an interesting point to think about.

[Jerk]

Boeing will probably lose their large contract with UAE now to build something like 50 large commercial jets. But one party believes the "ends justifies the means" so they'll take whatever leverage they can gain from this in the polls. The other party apparantly has no nuts and have been integrated into The Beast since they gained power in 1994 after they promised to make The Beast smaller, spend less, tax less, etc.

**** them all, and the dumb sheeple who buy into the propaganda.

So much for one of our great Arab allies in the war on terror. They'll probably ask our Air Force base to pack up and leave their country, as well as not allowing our naval ships to dock in their ports. But we can't have those pesky arabs running our ports!!!

This whole shenanigen was never about "our protection." It was about the 2006 election.

[Harry Beanbag]

ya know, there's an interesting question within this whole episode...I wonder if Bush's continued rhetoric about security and the war on terror has caused (or exacerbated) an illogical, knee-jerk reaction towards anything middle eastern, that in essence doomed this whole shebang from the git-go? Or did we (not nessecarily you and me, but the general populous at large, and the congress-men and women that represent them) come about our xenophobia 100% naturally?

in other words, it's entirely possible that the Bush administration inadvertently brought the failure of this deal on themselves by continually stressing security and the war on terror above all things.

anyway, just an interesting point to think about.

You may be right on the Republican side. The Dems though must have an ulterior motive to be so concerned about security for once. Unless of course they suddenly are advocating racial profiling...

[picasso]

as I heard on the radio nearly half of our country actually thought the UAE was going to be running security. heh, wrong.

[mdklatt]

as I heard on the radio nearly half of our country actually thought the UAE was going to be running security.

I wonder if the UAE could actually do a better job....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

WHY DOES HALLIBURTON GET TO RUN THE PORTSSSSS!!!!

THIS IS TOTAL BS!~~!!!!!!!!

ZINGO! now Dick Cheney can get the big commission he always gets from Halliburton, and the prez now has another totally hostile country that he will have to invade... but, wait. I think WALMART is on the list of bidders for the terminals contract. They could beat out Halliburton, and then all the pseudo security-conscious leftists will be happy.

[Ike]

You may be right on the Republican side. The Dems though must have an ulterior motive to be so concerned about security for once. Unless of course they suddenly are advocating racial profiling...

I think the dems are doing it for 2 reasons:
a) just to oppose Bush...that does seem to be their mission in everything not involving the distribution of pork
b) so they can campaign (just like the republicans) on a "we saved yer jerbs, and kept the A-rabs out of our ports!!! Vote fer meeee!" platform.

quite frankly, its disgusting that none of the members of congress wanted to actually look at the deal and attempt to educate the public. I understand why they did, but I still don't like it. They did it because if they try to actually do the right thing, they run the risk of failing by being labeled weak on a-rabs.
politics is all about scapegoating, and appearing to 'stand up against' the scapegoat. Its pretty shameful.

[Ike]

ZINGO! now Dick Cheney can get the big commission he always gets from Halliburton, and the prez now has another totally hostile country that he will have to invade... but, wait. I think WALMART is on the list of bidders for the terminals contract. They could beat out Halliburton, and then all the pseudo security-conscious leftists will be happy.

psssst...it won't be just the pseudo-cops on the left that will be happy...I'm guessing that there will be an equal number of people on the right that will be happy

[Harry Beanbag]

I think the dems are doing it for 2 reasons:
a) just to oppose Bush...that does seem to be their mission in everything not involving the distribution of pork
b) so they can campaign (just like the republicans) on a "we saved yer jerbs, and kept the A-rabs out of our ports!!! Vote fer meeee!" platform.

That's exactly what I think. ****ing politicians.

[AlbqSooner]

When the ultimate buyer is identifed, follow the ownership of that company all the way up. Would not surprise me in the least to find UAE owns/controls a substantial portion of the stock.