PDA

View Full Version : Bye bye Dubai


Judy G. Russell
March 9th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Dubya's Dubai deal self-destructed today when Dubai Ports decided it wasn't much fun being the brunt of the anger of much of the US Congress and population and chose to transfer to some as-yet-unnamed American company the leases to operate some major US ports.

Good.

It strikes me as being Bad Business in every sense of the term to allow a foreign government -- any foreign government -- even Canada! -- to control critical portions of our infrastructure.

Lindsey
March 9th, 2006, 11:00 PM
It strikes me as being Bad Business in every sense of the term to allow a foreign government -- any foreign government -- even Canada! -- to control critical portions of our infrastructure.
I was never sure whether it was truly a bad deal, or that it just looked like one on the surface. What I am sure of, though is that (a) the Bush administration did a lousy job of preparing the ground for that deal to go through; and (b) they are only reaping what they have sown. For nearly five years now, they have thriven by pumping up fear, suspicion, and distrust of the rest of the world, and especially of the Arab world. How could they be suprised, then, that people reacted with horror to the idea of a company owned by an Arab government having charge of some of the country's most important ports? (Why am I asking that question? These are the same people who insisted than nobody ever dreamed that terrorists might fly planes into buildings, or that the levees surrounding New Orleans might be breached by a severe hurricane...)

--Lindsey

ndebord
March 10th, 2006, 09:20 AM
Dubya's Dubai deal self-destructed today when Dubai Ports decided it wasn't much fun being the brunt of the anger of much of the US Congress and population and chose to transfer to some as-yet-unnamed American company the leases to operate some major US ports.

Good.

It strikes me as being Bad Business in every sense of the term to allow a foreign government -- any foreign government -- even Canada! -- to control critical portions of our infrastructure.

Judy,

It's not as though this is a new thing. We have been outsourcing our once strong merchant marine to foreign flags since the 50s. Our shipyards build navy and coast guard and little else these days, so to have the ports under the control of others is perhaps just a reflection on globalization and free trade ideology, positions the Republicans have made their own and one that some Democrats have embraced with equal relgious fervor.

Judy G. Russell
March 10th, 2006, 09:27 AM
I agree that they did a lousy job of selling this, but I still believe as a nation it's a very bad idea -- VERY bad -- to turn critical infrastructure over to a foreign government.

Judy G. Russell
March 10th, 2006, 09:28 AM
I hear you... and I have my concerns about that sort of thing too.

ktinkel
March 10th, 2006, 01:23 PM
I hear you... and I have my concerns about that sort of thing too.This story isn’t over. Dubai did not say they would sell, but “transfer” the port responsibility; and not to an American company but an “entity.”

According to some comments on Morning Edition today, there is no single American company capable of buying out Dubai’s interests here (too much money, and we have long ago ceded our skills and other resources in this area to many foreign interests). And Dubai is evidently holding out for a solution that does not cost them any loss of money.

I wonder if they could be thinking of setting up an American corporation that is owned by the Dubai business but not managed by them. Would that be acceptable to Congress in its current mood? Doubt it.

Regardless of the details, one of the clearly bad aspects of this agreement is that whoever negotiated it allowed them to keep business records in Dubai (to protect proprietary business information) rather than in the U.S. (where they could be subject to subpoena if need be). Now that strikes me as a seriously bad deal for us.

Judy G. Russell
March 10th, 2006, 03:02 PM
There's a lot about this that strikes me as seriously bad. And I agree -- it ain't over til the fat lady sings...

earler
March 10th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Because of flags of convenience, like liberia and panama, there are no major merchant fleets under any western country flags, and this for many years.

As for the ports, dubai ownership would have made no difference as to their security.

-er

ndebord
March 10th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Because of flags of convenience, like liberia and panama, there are no major merchant fleets under any western country flags, and this for many years.

As for the ports, dubai ownership would have made no difference as to their security.

-er

Earle,

Yes, I doubt the security would be any better or worse under Dubai ownership, with one caveat. If something did happen in a port they controlled and it was terrorists, they'd never live it down and neither would whomever allowed it in government.

Lindsey
March 10th, 2006, 09:41 PM
I agree that they did a lousy job of selling this, but I still believe as a nation it's a very bad idea -- VERY bad -- to turn critical infrastructure over to a foreign government.
Possibly, but it also looks like a ship that may already have sailed. Bottom line for me: I've heard arguments on both sides of the question, and I really don't know what to believe. Bush says he's concerned about the message rejecting the transfer sends to the rest of the world. I hope he's equally concerned by what it says about what has happened to his administration's credibility.

Meanwhile, under the heading of "be careful what you with for," I heard on one news broadcast today that the most likely entities to pick up the management of the ports are the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group) and Halliburton. If I weren't convinced that the current administration is so completely incompetent, I'd suspect a deep conspiracy...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
March 10th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Regardless of the details, one of the clearly bad aspects of this agreement is that whoever negotiated it allowed them to keep business records in Dubai (to protect proprietary business information) rather than in the U.S. (where they could be subject to subpoena if need be). Now that strikes me as a seriously bad deal for us.
Yes -- that was one of my chief concerns, too. Dubai itself may be every bit as reliable an ally as the administration says, but allowing them to keep records outside the reach of US law was an unusual concession, and not one that boded well.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
March 10th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I really don't know what to believe. Bush says he's concerned about the message rejecting the transfer sends to the rest of the world. I hope he's equally concerned by what it says about what has happened to his administration's credibility.
I don't think he understands for one minute why people don't believe every single solitary word he says.

Meanwhile, under the heading of "be careful what you with for," I heard on one news broadcast today that the most likely entities to pick up the management of the ports are the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group) and Halliburton. If I weren't convinced that the current administration is so completely incompetent, I'd suspect a deep conspiracy...Uh oh...

Lindsey
March 10th, 2006, 10:25 PM
I don't think he understands for one minute why people don't believe every single solitary word he says.
<sigh> There are none so blind...

Meanwhile, I see my typing fingers have developed a lisp. I meant, of course, "be careful what you wish for. :o

--Lindsey

rlohmann
March 11th, 2006, 05:52 PM
For nearly five years now, they have thriven by pumping up fear, suspicion, and distrust of the rest of the world, and especially of the Arab world.OIC.

For nearly five years now, I thought it was Arabs who had been behaving in such a manner as to generate fear, suspicion, and distrust.

Now, of course, I see that it was really Bush, Rove, and the rest of the ugly Americans. Thank you for explaining this to me.

<sneering wearily>

Wayne Scott
March 11th, 2006, 10:08 PM
Far better Dubai than Canada!

Wayne

Judy G. Russell
March 11th, 2006, 10:17 PM
What have you got against our neighbors to the north?

Lindsey
March 13th, 2006, 12:00 AM
For nearly five years now, I thought it was Arabs who had been behaving in such a manner as to generate fear, suspicion, and distrust.
So does that mean you thought the Bush administration was totally nuts for approving the Dubai deal and expecting it to go through as a matter of routine?

--Lindsey

Mike
March 21st, 2006, 02:41 PM
I don't think he understands for one minute why people don't believe every single solitary word he says.

Subject: Updated Breaking News - Outsourcing of the Presidency
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:11:31 -0800

Congress announced today that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India as of December 31st, 2006.

The move is being made to save the President's $400,000 yearly salary, and also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead the office has incurred during the last 5 years.

We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). Reynolds,with the aid of the Government Accounting Office, has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively.

We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted. Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination.

Preparations for the job move have been underway for sometime. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will be assuming the office of President as of January 1, 2007. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position.

He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open.

"Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President someday."

A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem because Bush was not familiar with the issues either. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand he underlying issues at all.

"We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson. "President Bush has used them successfully for years." Mr. Singh may have problems with the Texas drawl, but lately Bush has abandoned the "down home" persona in his effort to appear intelligent and on top of the Katrina situation.

Bush will receive health coverage, expenses and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for $240 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.

Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited practical work experience. A Greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience shaking hands and phony smile.

Another possibility is Bush's re-enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. His prior records are conspicuously vague but should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Waco, TX for a month, before being sent to Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport's terminal and gift shop.

Sources in Baghdad and Fallujah say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to receive details of his arrival so they may provide him with an appropriate reception.

Judy G. Russell
March 21st, 2006, 02:44 PM
Sources in Baghdad and Fallujah say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to receive details of his arrival so they may provide him with an appropriate reception.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lindsey
March 22nd, 2006, 12:21 AM
Oh, my!! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

--Lindsey