http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... shtml?s=ic
Members of Dubai’s royal family were said to be furious on Thursday over U.S. plans to reject their bid to operate terminals at U.S. ports - and they're threatening to cancel American business deals and perhaps even boot U.S. military forces from strategic bases in the UAE.
"They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’" a deal insider told the Hill newspaper.
The source said that Dubai’s royals were "furious" at both Republicans and Democrats over the rebuff.
At stake are two major U.S. bases in the UAE. The port of Jebel Ali docked over 500 Navy warships last year, and played host over 70,000 American troops
The Air Force flies reconnaissance and refueling missions out of the Al Dahfra airbase, which played a critical role in the air wars over Iraq and Afghanistan.
A harsh reaction from Dubai could impact a pending decision for the Emirates Group airline to purchase Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner - or go with the European competition, the Airbus A350.
Last fall, the Hill said, Dubai ordered 42 Boeing 777's in a deal worth $9.7 billion.
Lets blame this on the president also!
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
-
mslacat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6137
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:12 am
- Contact:
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24001
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I think it's funny that anybody can read a quote from a "royal family" member from a foreign country whose wealth all comes from OPEC oil threatening to quit doing business with us and respond by saying anything other than, "Go F yourself."
I thought we really liked democracy? Why are we supposed to care what these spoiled dictators threaten to do with their bags of money? I think we were supposed to be against this sort of thing?
When do we invade to install a democracy in their rich little country? This one would even be easy!
All that being said, I didn't have any real problem with the port deal except that it should have been thoroughly reviewed before it was approved. I only ask for competence from the White House, but I certainly don't demand the nixing of the deal based only on superficial prejudices.
I just hate monarchies.
I thought we really liked democracy? Why are we supposed to care what these spoiled dictators threaten to do with their bags of money? I think we were supposed to be against this sort of thing?
When do we invade to install a democracy in their rich little country? This one would even be easy!
All that being said, I didn't have any real problem with the port deal except that it should have been thoroughly reviewed before it was approved. I only ask for competence from the White House, but I certainly don't demand the nixing of the deal based only on superficial prejudices.
I just hate monarchies.
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
actually it seems kinda fairBay Area Cat wrote:I think it's funny that anybody can read a quote from a "royal family" member from a foreign country whose wealth all comes from OPEC oil threatening to quit doing business with us and respond by saying anything other than, "Go F yourself."
I thought we really liked democracy? Why are we supposed to care what these spoiled dictators threaten to do with their bags of money? I think we were supposed to be against this sort of thing?
When do we invade to install a democracy in their rich little country? This one would even be easy!
All that being said, I didn't have any real problem with the port deal except that it should have been thoroughly reviewed before it was approved. I only ask for competence from the White House, but I certainly don't demand the nixing of the deal based only on superficial prejudices.
I just hate monarchies.
they dont have to do buisness with us..
after all i thought they were a bunch of terrorists...why should we sell them the 777's?
This space for rent....
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/10/D8G8SEBGB.html
Gulf investors, feeling scorched by what they see as an anti-Arab backlash in the U.S. Congress, will likely be wary of high-profile investments in the United States after the ports controversy with a Dubai company.
In a possible early sign of trouble, free trade talks between the United States and the United Arab Emirates due to start Monday were postponed
The decision came a day after DP World announced that it would give up its management of six U.S. ports, which it received as part of a buyout of a British firm that previously administered the facility. The firm backed down after an uproar in Congress, where legislators said Dubai's administration could undermine security at the ports.
Neena Moorjani, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative said Friday in Washington that both sides in the free trade talks needed more time to prepare and she refused to say whether the postponement was related to the ports issue.
UAE government officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday, a weekend day in the Mideast. But UAE Central Bank Governor Sultan Bin Nasser Al Suwaidi was quoted Friday as saying the move by U.S. lawmakers to block DP World's port takeover could harm chances of resolving final issues holding up the pact.
"It is something that doesn't reflect well," Al Suwaidi said of the controversy, according to the local paper Gulf Today.
In Dubai and elsewhere in the Gulf, the controversy was largely seen as reflecting an anti-Arab bias. DP World's concession was likely to solidify that belief.
The outcome could leave Arab businessmen wary that their investments in the United States could come under similar scrutiny and could prompt them to look elsewhere to put their money.
But, with Gulf nations awash in cash from oil profits, the United States remains a tempting market to invest. So instead of retreating, over the longer term, Arab investors and governments may campaign to shore up their image among Americans to ensure their money is welcome.
"It's a sobering moment," said Eddie O'Sullivan, Dubai-based editorial director of the Middle East Economic Digest. "People are going to have to be much more careful. There's a fear they (members of Congress) may move on to other targets in the Arab world. If it happened once it can happen again."
Investors and businesses in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be reviewing portfolios for U.S. holdings that could spark a similar uproar in Congress, O'Sullivan said.
"Most of (the holdings) are in dollar-denominated assets. They'll want to see how vulnerable it is to the U.S. Congress," O'Sullivan said. "It'll be more difficult to finalize an investment proposal that involves an American bank or an American asset."
Few observers believe it will torpedo giant recent orders by two UAE airlines of Boeing passenger jets. But Chicago-based Boeing Co. may have to look outside the Gulf for future deals, said Youssef M. Ibrahim, managing director of Dubai-based risk consultancy Strategic Energy Investment Group.
"The next deal they will do with Airbus," the European aircraft consortium, Ibrahim said. "Dubai's ability to react is constrained. You can't punish America much if you are so small."
Last year, Dubai companies invested $5.5 billion in the West, much of that in the United States. In the next five years, the six Gulf countries will have a half-trillion dollars in assets to invest.
They may be more disposed to look to Europe or Asia for investment now _ but in the end, the amount of cash is so huge that only U.S. assets can soak it up, O'Sullivan said.
"The United States represents 50 percent of the world's economic market, 50 percent of the world's consumption and 50 percent of the assets in which you can put money," Ibrahim said. "At the end of the day, there aren't too many places where you can invest that kind of cash overflow."
The Emirates is unlikely to retaliate strongly for the slight, for instance by blocking the U.S. Navy and Air Force access to critical bases here, a prospect that has worried U.S. military leaders.
Governments of other cash-rich Gulf countries like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be loath to ruffle relations with the United States, analysts said.
Shehab Gergash, chief executive of Al-Daman, a Dubai-based investment bank, said he had seen no drop in investor interest in American products or securities.
"Time will tell whether it has any effect" on Arab investment in the States or Arab purchases of U.S. goods, Gergash said.
Many here blame the controversy on American politicians for playing to a deepening anti-Arab bias in the United States. Dubai-based Gulf News said U.S. Democrats were trying to "score political points" against the Bush administration on national security by ignoring the facts of the case.
"It is deemed better to jump on the bandwagon of anti-Arab, anti- Middle East, anti-Muslim tirade that has been popular since the 9/11 attacks," the paper's editorial page said Friday.
Ibrahim said the UAE may move to boost its image among Americans who fear closer ties with the Middle East. It may embark on opinion- shaping ventures that mimic Israel's deft public relations maneuvers: hosting visits by members of Congress, business leaders and chiefs of unions like the Teamsters, which opposed the deal, Ibrahim said.
"They should've invited these people here and shown them around, so they had friends who would defend them instead of attacking them without knowing anything about Dubai," Ibrahim said.
more UAE fallout THANKS CONGRESS!
Gulf investors, feeling scorched by what they see as an anti-Arab backlash in the U.S. Congress, will likely be wary of high-profile investments in the United States after the ports controversy with a Dubai company.
In a possible early sign of trouble, free trade talks between the United States and the United Arab Emirates due to start Monday were postponed
The decision came a day after DP World announced that it would give up its management of six U.S. ports, which it received as part of a buyout of a British firm that previously administered the facility. The firm backed down after an uproar in Congress, where legislators said Dubai's administration could undermine security at the ports.
Neena Moorjani, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative said Friday in Washington that both sides in the free trade talks needed more time to prepare and she refused to say whether the postponement was related to the ports issue.
UAE government officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday, a weekend day in the Mideast. But UAE Central Bank Governor Sultan Bin Nasser Al Suwaidi was quoted Friday as saying the move by U.S. lawmakers to block DP World's port takeover could harm chances of resolving final issues holding up the pact.
"It is something that doesn't reflect well," Al Suwaidi said of the controversy, according to the local paper Gulf Today.
In Dubai and elsewhere in the Gulf, the controversy was largely seen as reflecting an anti-Arab bias. DP World's concession was likely to solidify that belief.
The outcome could leave Arab businessmen wary that their investments in the United States could come under similar scrutiny and could prompt them to look elsewhere to put their money.
But, with Gulf nations awash in cash from oil profits, the United States remains a tempting market to invest. So instead of retreating, over the longer term, Arab investors and governments may campaign to shore up their image among Americans to ensure their money is welcome.
"It's a sobering moment," said Eddie O'Sullivan, Dubai-based editorial director of the Middle East Economic Digest. "People are going to have to be much more careful. There's a fear they (members of Congress) may move on to other targets in the Arab world. If it happened once it can happen again."
Investors and businesses in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be reviewing portfolios for U.S. holdings that could spark a similar uproar in Congress, O'Sullivan said.
"Most of (the holdings) are in dollar-denominated assets. They'll want to see how vulnerable it is to the U.S. Congress," O'Sullivan said. "It'll be more difficult to finalize an investment proposal that involves an American bank or an American asset."
Few observers believe it will torpedo giant recent orders by two UAE airlines of Boeing passenger jets. But Chicago-based Boeing Co. may have to look outside the Gulf for future deals, said Youssef M. Ibrahim, managing director of Dubai-based risk consultancy Strategic Energy Investment Group.
"The next deal they will do with Airbus," the European aircraft consortium, Ibrahim said. "Dubai's ability to react is constrained. You can't punish America much if you are so small."
Last year, Dubai companies invested $5.5 billion in the West, much of that in the United States. In the next five years, the six Gulf countries will have a half-trillion dollars in assets to invest.
They may be more disposed to look to Europe or Asia for investment now _ but in the end, the amount of cash is so huge that only U.S. assets can soak it up, O'Sullivan said.
"The United States represents 50 percent of the world's economic market, 50 percent of the world's consumption and 50 percent of the assets in which you can put money," Ibrahim said. "At the end of the day, there aren't too many places where you can invest that kind of cash overflow."
The Emirates is unlikely to retaliate strongly for the slight, for instance by blocking the U.S. Navy and Air Force access to critical bases here, a prospect that has worried U.S. military leaders.
Governments of other cash-rich Gulf countries like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be loath to ruffle relations with the United States, analysts said.
Shehab Gergash, chief executive of Al-Daman, a Dubai-based investment bank, said he had seen no drop in investor interest in American products or securities.
"Time will tell whether it has any effect" on Arab investment in the States or Arab purchases of U.S. goods, Gergash said.
Many here blame the controversy on American politicians for playing to a deepening anti-Arab bias in the United States. Dubai-based Gulf News said U.S. Democrats were trying to "score political points" against the Bush administration on national security by ignoring the facts of the case.
"It is deemed better to jump on the bandwagon of anti-Arab, anti- Middle East, anti-Muslim tirade that has been popular since the 9/11 attacks," the paper's editorial page said Friday.
Ibrahim said the UAE may move to boost its image among Americans who fear closer ties with the Middle East. It may embark on opinion- shaping ventures that mimic Israel's deft public relations maneuvers: hosting visits by members of Congress, business leaders and chiefs of unions like the Teamsters, which opposed the deal, Ibrahim said.
"They should've invited these people here and shown them around, so they had friends who would defend them instead of attacking them without knowing anything about Dubai," Ibrahim said.
more UAE fallout THANKS CONGRESS!
This space for rent....
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24001
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I think I agree with what you are saying. You are angy at the House Republicans for disagreeing with Bush and essentially blocking the deal in the name of anti-Arab paranoia.Hell's Bells wrote:actually it seems kinda fairBay Area Cat wrote:I think it's funny that anybody can read a quote from a "royal family" member from a foreign country whose wealth all comes from OPEC oil threatening to quit doing business with us and respond by saying anything other than, "Go F yourself."
I thought we really liked democracy? Why are we supposed to care what these spoiled dictators threaten to do with their bags of money? I think we were supposed to be against this sort of thing?
When do we invade to install a democracy in their rich little country? This one would even be easy!
All that being said, I didn't have any real problem with the port deal except that it should have been thoroughly reviewed before it was approved. I only ask for competence from the White House, but I certainly don't demand the nixing of the deal based only on superficial prejudices.
I just hate monarchies.
they dont have to do buisness with us..
after all i thought they were a bunch of terrorists...why should we sell them the 777's?
I assume you also agree with Al Gore's speech from awhile ago where he, too, suggested that American suffers from anti-Arab hostility and that some of our security decisions have been made in error as a result?
But I still hate monarchies.
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
kinda pointless just blameing republicans in congress the dems were also at fault.Bay Area Cat wrote:I think I agree with what you are saying. You are angy at the House Republicans for disagreeing with Bush and essentially blocking the deal in the name of anti-Arab paranoia.Hell's Bells wrote:actually it seems kinda fairBay Area Cat wrote:I think it's funny that anybody can read a quote from a "royal family" member from a foreign country whose wealth all comes from OPEC oil threatening to quit doing business with us and respond by saying anything other than, "Go F yourself."
I thought we really liked democracy? Why are we supposed to care what these spoiled dictators threaten to do with their bags of money? I think we were supposed to be against this sort of thing?
When do we invade to install a democracy in their rich little country? This one would even be easy!
All that being said, I didn't have any real problem with the port deal except that it should have been thoroughly reviewed before it was approved. I only ask for competence from the White House, but I certainly don't demand the nixing of the deal based only on superficial prejudices.
I just hate monarchies.
they dont have to do buisness with us..
after all i thought they were a bunch of terrorists...why should we sell them the 777's?
I assume you also agree with Al Gore's speech from awhile ago where he, too, suggested that American suffers from anti-Arab hostility and that some of our security decisions have been made in error as a result?
But I still hate monarchies.
but anyways i cant belive i am typing this i agree with al gore
This space for rent....
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24001
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
You can blame the Dems as well, but they were powerless to affect any legislation. The Reps were the ones who flexed their power to actually kill the deal. The Dems were just glorified cheerleaders in the process (and spooked the Republicans into trying to out-overreact the Dems to appear to be strong on security).Hell's Bells wrote:kinda pointless just blameing republicans in congress the dems were also at fault.
but anyways i cant belive i am typing this i agree with al gore
It is strange how timely and accurate Gore's comments are now in retrospect.
-
Hell's Bells
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:58 pm
- Location: Belgrade, Mt.
- Contact:
its also amazing that you just agreed with bushBay Area Cat wrote:You can blame the Dems as well, but they were powerless to affect any legislation. The Reps were the ones who flexed their power to actually kill the deal. The Dems were just glorified cheerleaders in the process (and spooked the Republicans into trying to out-overreact the Dems to appear to be strong on security).Hell's Bells wrote:kinda pointless just blameing republicans in congress the dems were also at fault.
but anyways i cant belive i am typing this i agree with al gore
It is strange how timely and accurate Gore's comments are now in retrospect.
This space for rent....
-
SonomaCat
- Moderator
- Posts: 24001
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Sonoma County, CA
- Contact:
I agree with his assertion that we shouldn't nix the deal based on the fact that they are who they are alone ... but I definitely think he dropped the ball in his execution of the whole issue. Knowing about it before the press release would have been good, and there definitely should have been a thorough public study of the issue before it was approved.
But when Bush is right on something, I will definitely agree. I can count on one hand the number of times I have voted for Dems in my life, so it is usually fairly easy for a Republican to at least occasionally do things that I agree with. Bush just has an uncanny knack for depleting virtually all faith I could have in the guy.
Did I mention that I really hate monarchies?
But when Bush is right on something, I will definitely agree. I can count on one hand the number of times I have voted for Dems in my life, so it is usually fairly easy for a Republican to at least occasionally do things that I agree with. Bush just has an uncanny knack for depleting virtually all faith I could have in the guy.
Did I mention that I really hate monarchies?
-
BWahlberg
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: Missoula
- Contact: