Dubai not good for our ports? How about our military?

[chomerics]

For you rabid isolationists. . .

Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

The officials, who were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about something the president had not yet announced, said that the final details had not yet been set and that Mr. Bush might put conditions on the transaction to keep military technology in the United States.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

Dubai Ports agreed to drop the port deal after it became clear that Republicans were abandoning Mr. Bush and opposing the takeover.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded the ports deal.

Opponents of the ports transactions argued that the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had filtered money through the United Arab Emirates, where Dubai is the major shipping center. Mr. Bush argued that blocking the deal would have sent the wrong message to a friendly Arab state. His support, however, was not enough to quell the political furor.

One official who was briefed on the Doncasters transaction said there would be provisions in the agreement protecting American military secrets. But it was unclear whether that would satisfy Congressional objections. With nine Doncasters plants in Georgia and Connecticut making parts for American military contractors, the prospect of a takeover by the Dubai company has already caused nervousness among some lawmakers.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

But Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and one of the foremost critics of the ports deal, said on Thursday that he would not necessarily have a problem this time around, in large part because the White House had given the deal a thorough review.

"It's a significant improvement over what happened before," Mr. King said. "It's been much more thorough, much more detailed."

A senior Republican Congressional aide who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the matter, said he did not believe the president's approval of the deal would cause quite the same stir as the ports deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/washington/28dubai.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Again, a good idea and I bet the right wing will be up in arms about this.

[Thanos]

and the American people continue to sleep.:doh:

[Cdowwe]

Chom...its been a while

[rictus58]

Again, a good idea and I bet the right wing will be up in arms about this.

Yeah, the Liberals were ALL for the ports deal weren't they? :doh:

[Burgold]

I feel a little less uneasy about this than the ports, but yeah, putting them in charge of building or the maintanence of our military does seem odd. They did fund terrorists. All the stuff that generated unease still holds.

[rictus58]

I feel a little less uneasy about this than the ports, but yeah, putting them in charge of building or the maintanence of our military does seem odd. They did fund terrorists. All the stuff that generated unease still holds.

Is there not ONE American company that can handle these operations?

[chomerics]

Yeah, the Liberals were ALL for the ports deal weren't they? :doh:

Umm I was, it was the uber right that was up in arms about it. Go back and read the threads on Dubai and see what I am talking about. They are for isolationism, and they are strongly anti-free trade, it stems from nationalism and an feeling of "we don't need no stinking countries" to survive nin a global marketplace.

[chomerics]

Chom...its been a while

Hmmm, not sure of the comment, because I actually AGREE with Bush here. . .

[@DCGoldPants]

Yeah, the Liberals were ALL for the ports deal weren't they? :doh:

I still think its a bad idea for a foreign gov't or company to own any of the following within the U.S.

• Seaports
  
• Airports
  
• Railway
  
• Energy
  

[rictus58]

Umm I was, it was the uber right that was up in arms about it. Go back and read the threads on Dubai and see what I am talking about. They are for isolationism, and they are strongly anti-free trade, it stems from nationalism and an feeling of "we don't need no stinking countries" to survive nin a global marketplace.

It wasn't an issue that followed political lines. do you represent ALL liberals? Probably no more so than sarge speaks for all conservatives.

Keep talking out your ass chom

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/09/ports.timeline/index.html

February 17, 2006 - Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, announce plan to introduce legislation blocking sale

[Burgold]

Yeah, Dubai port was actually not a right/left issue. People from both wings had very strong feelings... mostly against the deal. It was one of the few instances of political unity we've had in a while (especially on the congressional level)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Many liberals opposed this

And stupidly many conservatives did also

It was liberals opposing it to stick it to Bush and that they oppose any free trade, and conservatives because of nationalism, and in both wings plenty of bigotry

That simple

[@DCGoldPants]

Many liberals opposed this

And stupidly many conservatives did also

It was liberals opposing it to stick it to Bush, and conservatives because of nationalism

That simple

No, not that simple.

The President got up and defended the sale without even really knowing about it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

No, not that simple.

The President got up and defended the sale without even really knowing about it.

Sure it was. This was a good move for the country, and shows that hey we can seperate terrorists from legitimate Muslim business people

But sadly, neither the right nor left in this country can

[LegionOfDoom]

Is there not ONE American company that can handle these operations?

I nominate google....they can do it all......

[@DCGoldPants]

and just NOW they start planning to screen all those dock workers.

Yeah, a good move for the country.

Would you let another country own National Airport?

[rictus58]

In my mind this isn't a matter of religous bigotry. Its a matter of national security. In my mind there is no difference between a firm from Japan running ports or military manufacturing, than a company owned and operated by Muslims.

[SkinsHokieFan]

and just NOW they start planning to screen all those dock workers.

Yeah, a good move for the country.

Would you let another country own National Airport?

Its already happening, the Chineese own several ports

Why can't Muslims?

Oh yeah, I forgot, we hate us

[@DCGoldPants]

We hate us?

Read above, I don't think any outside nation or company should own a number of things within the United States.

Transportation and Energy are at the top of that list.

Rictus said it, Dubai, Japan, even Canada.

Nobody.

[Major Harris]

Yeah, Dubai port was actually not a right/left issue. People from both wings had very strong feelings... mostly against the deal. It was one of the few instances of political unity we've had in a while (especially on the congressional level)

funny how when we had unity, people were unified in being wrong.

[SkinsHokieFan]

We hate us?

Read above, I don't think any outside nation or company should own a number of things within the United States.

Transportation and Energy are at the top of that list.

Rictus said it, Dubai, Japan, even Canada.

Nobody.

Kind of funny how none of that has caused an uproar isn't it?

As soon as Muhammed, Achmed, or Habib want to do business here, liberals are talking about national security

Funny

And you'll see why I am singling out liberals. Many conservatives don't hide their bigotry, liberals though are supposed to be all tolerant. We just had a 20 page thread on gay stories in Mass talking about liberal tolerance. Clearly it is only when its convienvent to be tolerant, and quite honestly being tolerant of Muslims isn't very convienent these days

[SkinsHokieFan]

funny how when we had unity, people were unified in being wrong.

Bingo :laugh:

Its brought Moutaineer and Hokie unity :laugh:

[rictus58]

Kind of funny how none of that has caused an uproar isn't it?

As soon as Muhammed, Achmed, or Habib want to do business here, liberals are talking about national security

Funny

And you'll see why I am singling out liberals. Many conservatives don't hide their bigotry, liberals though are supposed to be all tolerant. We just had a 20 page thread on gay stories in Mass talking about liberal tolerance. Clearly it is only when its convienvent to be tolerant, and quite honestly being tolerant of Muslims isn't very convienent these days

You sure are good at putting lables on people. Im sure in the Land of Black and White in which you live, things are easily put into boxes, In the real world, people are allowed to different levels of tolerance. Not all issues are cut and dry. And, if you look at the records again BOTH LIBERALS AND CONVERVATIVES were against the deal. You said earlier, that the liberals did it to stick it to Bbush....now you are saying it's intolerance and racism. Which is it? Make-up your mind.

[@DCGoldPants]

I swear, I don't know where you come up with some of this stuff.

Did you think of a second that a lot of people are uncomfortable with anybody outside of the U.S. Gov't or U.S. companies running something as important as a Port when we're the target of terrorist anger? Or, did you just assume its a race/culture thing?

If I said that I didn't want England or Spain to run those ports, then what happens to your quest to label everybody either liberal or conservative?

The majority of Americans didn't want this to happen. The elected officials listened to the folks who sent them to the hill, which is more than we can say for the admin on this topic, and they represented the will of the people.

Whether you think its right or wrong doesn't mean squat. Because if a dirty bomb snuck through a port, and people were killed. I can't imagine you'd stand up and say "Ok, everybody was right...."

[SkinsHokieFan]

You sure are good at putting lables on people. Im sure in the Land of Black and White in which you live, things are easily put into boxes, In the real world, people are allowed to different levels of tolerance. Not all issues are cut and dry. And, if you look at the records again BOTH LIBERALS AND CONVERVATIVES were against the deal. You said earlier, that the liberals did it to stick it to Bbush....now you are saying it's intolerance and racism. Which is it? Make-up your mind.

Both

Of course I put labels on people, cuz I am labeled quite frequently

A Muslim who happens to be conservative. WTF? I have been called things from token to point blank asked by a green party member in college how much the college Republicans paid me to participate in a debate on their behalf

It is the inner bigot that people have in them which comes out in times like this, ultimately we try our best to be tolerant, but can't always be that way. It happens to me also

Like I said, I would give the side that opposed the port deal more credibility if they were crying foul over Canada, Japan, and China buying and owning our ports, but there wasn't a peep

Once Muhammed and Habib decided to put their hands on ports, all hell broke loose about national security. Right, I am sure it was always about that