Dubai to "retaliate" if port deal blocked?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Manedwolf

member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,693
Location
New Hampshire
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

"Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports."


and from Reuters today:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush, who has threatened to veto legislation blocking the Dubai ports deal, has not changed his position, the White House said on Thursday."


Soooo...they THREATEN us...and he's gonna not only go along with it, but veto the work of any conservative legislators who have the backbone to say "hell no."

Who does he work for, again? And WHY do we want to give these people our ports? They just threatened us!! :fire:

BTW, even Bush's own state department just ripped on Dubai:

"State Dept. trashes UAE rights record

BY RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The State Department's human rights report ripping the United Arab Emirates landed with near-perfect bad timing for the White House yesterday in the middle of the ports sale debate.

Opponents of the deal quickly seized on the report as yet another strike against the sale of terminals at six major U.S. ports to a firm owned by the government of Dubai, one of the seven emirates.

Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.), who raised the initial alarms that have now been taken up by the GOP House leadership, said the report knocked down the White House's argument that the UAE was a reform-minded nation.

"This shows that they're a very regressive, very oppressive, nondemocratic regime," King said.
 
Wait, we are selling them Apache Helicoptors and AWACS? Are these not the folks that our government deems to haved helped terrorists? There not good enough to protect or ports, but they are just fine to buy our top of the line military aircraft?

We are all over the road on this one!

To be honest though, if this was a foriegn country blocking the USA from buying into something like this, we be doing the same thing they are. Yes it's technically threatoning us, but in the pocketbook and logistics. This happens every day all over the world in just about any market.
 
To be honest though, if this was a foriegn country blocking the USA from buying into something like this, we be doing the same thing they are.

Actually, no. The US could not buy the ability to oversee a port in the UAE. It would be against their laws. Ironic, no?
 
Well look at it this way.
You walk into a store that everyone goes to, and you pickup a case of soda that anyone else can buy. You go to the counter and the cashier says "you cant have that, we dont like the looks of you".

How would you respond?

It dosnt matter that you dont sell soda to the store, it matters that they sell to everyone else but you.
I think alot of nations are going to retaliate.

The republicans self-destruct over nonsense, the Democrats come off looking like kings of security while not having a clue what they done, the nations of the world start to think twice about investing in america, the arabs get pissed for being openly descriminated against while we lose a few more hearts and minds.

In the end stopping the deal wont help the war and most likely would make us less secure than if they just let it happen. It surely wont help the money flow or discourage terrorists to descriminate.
Usama and the rest will just say "well thats how they are, we told you so!".

Looks like gore in '08
 
The Bush Administration's greatest weakness is probably communication, and the "secrecy" that goes with that weakness. I don't believe that most of what they do "in secret" is done so because they're evil; I think it's because they are bad at communication and they know it, so they try to just ignore the problem. This, of course, compounds the problem.

So Bush has said he'd veto a legislative block of the deal.

Let's put aside the BDS for a minute and consider that he's neither intrinsically evil nor incredibly stupid. (BTW it's really not possible for someone to be a scheming evil overlord and a complete idiot at the same time)

Maybe, just maybe, he knows something that hasn't been said. Maybe he would rather see DPW manage loading and unloading cargo at some of our ports, than lose an important de facto base of US military operations in the Persian Gulf. That's what UAE is, BTW, for those who don't know that. There have been more US Navy ships there than in San Diego, since 9/11, AFAIK, and that's saying something.

Now, maybe the ports deal is so bad that blocking it is worth any strategic loss. And maybe it's not.

A lot of people think it's no big deal, once they look at it in detail. And a lot of people think it IS a big deal.

Dubai doesn't HAVE to let us park military ships there.

Is this really blackmail? It depends on what they mean.

Is it blackmail when we in the US threaten a country with heavy tariffs if they don't allow our imports into their market? I don't think so.

If the UAE sees this as a simple attack on their ability to do business freely, then "retaliation" in kind could be justified. But then again, we didn't bomb them into the Stone Age when we found their rather extensive involvement in 9/11, combined with support for the Taliban, Palestinian terrorism, etc. So maybe they owe us one for that.

Nothing is simple in this, unfortunately, except the simple-minded rhetoric in DC.
 
:cuss:


Im through with trying to express my feelings with this administration. Everytime I try to open my mouth(or type) to express my outrage over this deal, I cant think of the right words. Hell, words need to be invented to express the BS'ery of this whole situation.


:barf:
 
You walk into a store that everyone goes to, and you pickup a case of soda that anyone else can buy. You go to the counter and the cashier says "you cant have that, we dont like the looks of you".

I don't think it's like that at all. The UAE does not have a spotless record, and WAS involved with the Taliban and such.

This is more like saying "No, you can't buy the gun because your past criminal record is questionable." This is our freaking PORTS...can you say "strategic assets"? It's not a bake sale!
 
This is one of the few issues that I have had a difficult time making a decision on. My one thought is that this company is in the money-making business and it would not be good for business if they knowingly allowed something dangerous to pass through the ports. One the other hand I have a problem with this being a state-run business and not a private firm. This fact just makes me a little uneasy. Like I said, I can't seem to come done firmly on either side of this one.
 
MS .45-

Me too.

A lot of this comes down to guessing the motives of the aristocrat who controls the company, the Emir.
 
I don't think it's like that at all. The UAE does not have a spotless record, and WAS involved with the Taliban and such.

The british tried to enslave us, the french cooperated with the germans, the russians tried to erase us from the face of the globe... at some point you just have to let it go.
I doubt theres a single country in the middle east that was NOT involved with the taliban or alqueda at some point (hell, we tossed a few bucks at the talibans cause too), but right now we need any friends we can get and this deal dosnt change much about our security.

I think at this point, we need friendly relations more than a Democrats "We secured america by pissing off arabs" speach followed by 2 years of deadlock.
 
Maxwell, I agree with you 99%.:D

I just don't pretend to know more about this than the people involved. But I'm becoming convinced that many of us here have a more sensible and informed opinion than most of Congress.:p
 
I think at this point, we need friendly relations more than a Democrats "We secured america by pissing off arabs" speach followed by 2 years of deadlock.

And how, exactly, would we be encouraging democracy, free markets and capitalism by selling our ports to a state-owned company? It's not a private enterprise at all.

And at this point, I have my doubts about "friendly relations" in the region. Give them our strategic assets, might just get us a knife in the back.

The nations of the region have us by a sensitive bit of anatomy because of our dependence on the black stuff that comes out of the ground. Cut off the flow of oil, our economy goes in the dumpster overnight. They know it. They don't NEED to play nice. Ever.

To me, this is the people holding the strings, saying "Dance for us." And while the administration might go along, I despise everything about that sort of cowardice. What happens if we get into a serious scuffle in the region and DPW decides to have a sudden series of "errors" in the terminal admistration that controls the flow of our military materiel out of those ports? Or the flow of foodstuffs and other products where any disruption in the supply chain would disrupt things everywhere?

Do you really want people who at least DID have associations with the Taliban and Palestinian terror groups to have their hands on the flow of foodstuffs and products that our nation's day to day life depends on, able to literally screw up the whole infinitely complex supply chain at annnnny time?

I don't.
 
And how, exactly, would we be encouraging democracy, free markets and capitalism by selling our ports to a state-owned company? It's not a private enterprise at all.

Its not that we're encouraging a free market with one sale, its that by stopping the sale we're showing our bias. So much the worse that it IS their government.
This is an open act that you know our enemies will be replaying, on every channel in slow motion, for the next 20 years.

5 seconds before this deal we ran around saying these people were friends. 5 seconds after we're going to be needing their ports and help to follow through on our military actions in the middle east.

By making this all-or-nothing deal we've hurt our own war no matter how anyone votes.
Having our government tie its own hands is not a smart thing in time of war.
 
You walk into a store that everyone goes to, and you pickup a case of soda that anyone else can buy. You go to the counter and the cashier says "you cant have that, we dont like the looks of you".

The attendant who approved the boarding passes of the lead 9/11 terrorists had a gut feeling that he should not let that man on the plane. He discounted his own gut because he thought he was being unfair to Arabs. Have we learned nothing? All it takes is one of these people to have a Cousin Fatwah who gets a job at a port over here. Mr. Fatwah will get a pass to wander the port and access to all information about what ships are coming in when and where the DHS and CG inspectors are. DO YOU TRUST THESE PEOPLE THAT MUCH? They produced two of the 9/11 hijackers. They're threatening us with retaliation now. They backed the Taliban. They have helped ship nuclear components to Iran. Are these the actions of a close friend and ally?
 
I have a theory that if all the layers of the Port onion were peeled away, we would find money and Bush friends in the center.

Its just a theory though. I just wish I knew what company those Bush friends were associated with so I could buy stock. I've already let Halliburton slip through my fingers.
 
Manedwolf said:
"Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports."
:rolleyes:
Good...under the current law against discrimination in procurement they could sue this government for millions based on procurement discrimination and profiling! The Dems and Repubs making this UAE thing an issue should pay for their hypocrisy!
 
Its not that we're encouraging a free market with one sale, its that by stopping the sale we're showing our bias. So much the worse that it IS their government.
This is an open act that you know our enemies will be replaying, on every channel in slow motion, for the next 20 years.

5 seconds before this deal we ran around saying these people were friends. 5 seconds after we're going to be needing their ports and help to follow through on our military actions in the middle east.

By making this all-or-nothing deal we've hurt our own war no matter how anyone votes.
Having our government tie its own hands is not a smart thing in time of war.

That's too logical and doesn't provide enough opening for beating up on the President, who seems to be the only one lately with any common sense. Everyone else is too busy hating Presidents, Mexicans, and Muslims. As far as I can tell, Osama is winning big time.
 
Breaking news on CNN--it looks like DP World just blinked. They're offering to hire a US firm to do all the actual management and to keep their own people out of any direct involvement. They'll just take the money.

I have to say nothing has disturbed me as much as seeing our President controlled like a puppet. They aren't even pretending that he has control over the situation. The Emirs are running the show, and they're the ones negotiating with Congress and coming to legislative deals with them! Our President is just one of their boys.
 
The selling of America continues to the highest bidder, security, freedom,
quality of life be damned, we need the money.:rolleyes:
 
I think all sides of the flap are missing a key component. The component is a rise in American nationalism. Its first manifestation would more than likely be over some symbolic issue. I think the ports flap is largely symbolic. If you were to mix up an obstinate and tone deaf president with a worried congressional majority and a seething opposition media and cheerleading supportive media you will get pretty much what we see here. Does that mean American nationalism will be protectionist? Who can tell.

If I'm correct we'll see push back on illegal immigration. The house set up a bill that has nothing about amnest and that is all the senate is concerned with. I think a real battle is forming over immigration policy. It will really be interesting to see if Bush delays debate over FTAA. I'm thinking the political landscape has just shifted and neither party is aware of just how much has changed.
 
The F-16 Block 60
A High-Tech Aircraft for a Volatile Region
Capt Gilles Van Nederveen, USAF*

Editor’s Note: PIREP is aviation shorthand for pilot report. It’s a means for one pilot to pass on current, potentially useful information to other pilots. In the same fashion, we intend to use this department to let readers know about aerospace-power items of interest. We intend to keep it flexible, so sometimes it may just call your attention to a recently published article in another journal; other times, we may provide in-depth coverage of a particular topic.

*Capt Gilles Van Nederveen, an associate editor of Aerospace Power Journal, is a career intelligence officer who flew on RC-135, EC-130, and E-8 aircraft. He has worked in both national and joint intelligence assignments.

The F-16 Block 60 is the latest variant of the popular and widely sold F-16. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) ordered 80 aircraft—55 single seaters and 25 dual seaters—for $8 billion (for details, see http://www.lmtas.com/News/ Press/F16/f16pr000305.html). UAE is buying the most sophisticated version of the F-16 and is investing almost $3 billion of its money into research and development. Writing in the 13 March 2000 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, David Fulghum and John Morrocco observe that “this aircraft will be envied by USAF pilots.” This sale will also mark the first time that the United States has sold a better aircraft overseas than its own forces fly.

Controversy has surrounded the most advanced version of the F-16 since we announced its sale on 25 May 1999. Some people object to contributing to an arms race in a volatile area, while others oppose the sale of a superior weapon system overseas when the US Air Force itself cannot afford it. To sample the different viewpoints, see the Conventional Arms Transfer Project at http://www.clw.org/cat/index.html and the Federation of American Scientists at http://www.fas.org. Good background data is available from other aviation-related sites, such as Air Forces Monthly at http://www.airforcesmonthly.com, Jane’s International Defense Review at http://www. janes.com, and F-16 News at http://www.f-16.net/f16news.html. For Department of Defense (DOD) information about the sale of the aircraft, associated weapons, and congressional notifications, see http://www.defenselink.mil/news.

The Buyer
UAE, actually seven sheikdoms on the western shore of the Persian Gulf (see http://www. uae.org.ae), is trying to diversify its arms sources, as have other Persian Gulf states. In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, it bought French Mirage 2000s, but a faction in the UAE military pushed for a US fighter. By playing the United States and its European competitors against each other, UAE and other Persian Gulf states have acquired sophisticated weaponry at relatively low cost. After eliminating other modern fighters, such as the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Russian Su-37, UAE chose the F-16.

A unique country sometimes referred to as the “Singapore” of the Persian Gulf because of its workforce and commercial hub, UAE must depend upon outside or Western support because its military is too small to defend against any regional threat. The lack of unity among the seven sheikdoms has divided the command of UAE forces, with the Ministry of Defense located in Dubai and the General Headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Because of its small population base, UAE must continue to rely on Pakistani and British contract pilots and officers to operate its air force.

Anthony Cordesman’s Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE: Challenges of Security (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997) charts the growth of UAE’s military and the current problems it faces as it tries to expand and modernize in the wake of Desert Storm. Cordesman also explains the complex relations of the entire Persian Gulf, such as the outstanding dispute with Iran over the ownership of the Abu Musa and Tunb islands in the Strait of Hormuz, occupied under the Shah of Iran in 1971 as British forces left the Gulf region in their “East of Suez” pullout.

The Aircraft
The F-16 Block 60, also known as the Desert Falcon, boasts the following features, which set it apart from the most modern Block 50 F-16s in the US Air Force inventory:

Conformal fuel tanks mounted above the wing root, which allow for a mission radius of 1,025 miles with no in-flight refueling. This amounts to a 40 percent increase over the range of the current Block 50 F-16.
Internal forward-looking infrared targeting system mounted into the nose of the aircraft, which replaces the external pods on earlier F-16 models. This reduces drag and lowers the radar cross section of the aircraft, making detection by the enemy more difficult.
Agile-beam radar, which employs an active, electronically scanned antenna to achieve the wide bandwidth necessary to support the Desert Falcon’s mission. The radar relies on a fixed panel of transmitters and receptors that can broadcast beams quickly and in every direction.
Electronic countermeasures suite with internal electronic countermeasures and an electronic-warfare management system designed to foil Russian double-digit surface-to-air missiles such as the SA-10 and SA-12.
Advanced mission computer to enhance sensor and weapon integration.
Three five-inch by five-inch color displays in the cockpit and a helmet-mounted cueing system to improve situational awareness of the pilot.
New F-110-GE-132 engine, which produces 32,000 lb of thrust (see http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html ).
Missions conducted by Desert Falcons include air superiority, air and maritime surveillance, regional air defense, and precision ground attack. For more information, see Lockheed Martin’s web site on all its fighter aircraft programs, including the F-16 Block 60, at http://www.thefighterenterprise.com.

The Sale
Difficulties attendant upon the purchase of the Desert Falcons involved (1) “source codes,” which allow the reprogramming of onboard avionics, and (2) the ability to carry a standoff attack weapon—especially a cruise missile. The source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses are extremely controversial since the United States never exports them; instead, we will send UAE the “object codes,” which will allow it to add to the F-16’s threat library (see http://www.clw.org/cat/pr11-15-99.html).

After weeks of quiet diplomacy, the US State Department informed France—which wanted to export the Black Shahine—that that standoff weapon was in fact a cruise missile banned under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Since its range exceeds 300 km (the current defining limit for cruise missiles under the MTCR), international agreement regulates the export of such weapons. Because the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry, we made it very clear that Lockheed Martin could not change the data bus to permit the aircraft to carry the Black Shahine. UAE, however, might modify some of its Mirage 2000-5s/-9s to carry the weapon (see http://www.janes.com). Furthermore, the AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile could have become a hard export, but when Qatar bought the French Mica beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—the equivalent of the AIM-120—we dropped our objections. The AIM-120 and other state-of-the-art weaponry are now part of a $2 billion weapons package accompanying the F-16 contract (see http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1998/m09161998_m143-98.html).

UAE also sees the Desert Falcon acquisition as a prestige issue, since all Persian Gulf countries have made or are in the process of making further purchases of fighter aircraft. Additionally, UAE will allow the US Air Force to use the new base that will house the 80 F-16s. According to the DOD statement accompanying the notification of sale to Congress, UAE has become a key regional ally who will help the United States with basing, access, and pre-positioning of material.

Supporting the sale, DOD has agreed that the Air National Guard at Tucson, Arizona, will conduct the initial cadre training. In addition, because of the UAE air force’s concern about the lag between contract signing and aircraft delivery, it intends to purchase 20 Dutch F-16As/Bs for training and familiarization purposes prior to the arrival of the newly built Desert Falcons. Although some parties consider the sale of the F-16 Block 60s controversial, in reality it enhances the capabilities of a key US regional partner and gives US Air Force expeditionary forces seamless integration in a crisis.
 
The attendant who approved the boarding passes of the lead 9/11 terrorists had a gut feeling that he should not let that man on the plane.

Thats like saying a cashier had a bad feeling about selling soda to a violent criminal who then threw the can at someone.
Where were the cops, feds, and other agents who let them slip?
Why should that attendant, with the least legal backing, become the nations main line of defense?

These people have been screened by our agents and other forign governments. They were green lighted, theres no solid reason to block it.
If we stop this deal we will have to explain why we hate arabs, then live with a badly damaged war effort.
If we dont block the deal its still going hurt our war effort by slowing our funding.

Many of those who oppose the Republicans have been praying for a disaster on the war front just to spite them, this is a win-win situation for the enemy... why would we just walk into it like lemmings?
 
Certainly others should have stopped the terrorists first. My point is--TRUST YOUR GUT. And the national gut instinct is don't give these clowns control over our ports. You gotta go with your gut. You want to call that "Arab hating" go ahead. I have no problem doing arms length business with them or coordinating in anti-terrorist actions. But do I trust those people enough to give them control over our port managment? NO WAY. They're oil in our water. An alien people following an alien religion in an alien part of the world.
 
To quote the infamous Chuck Schumer, the devil is in the details. What I see is that the US government will have to buy out or underwrite the deal, I believe 6.7 billion dollars. UAE specifies that they will not lose money in turning over the US operations to a US firm.

I think we are getting very reckless here. What we are not hearing is that all other port deals will have to be addressed, and all ports are managed by foreign companies. If you combine quarrels with Mexico over immigration and drug traffic and kicking Saudi Ariabia out of port management, you just pissed off the number two and number three oil suppliers. There are already serious problems with Nigeria and and Venezuela, number four and number five. Canada is number one. Let's see if we can find a way to quarrel with them, maybe criticize their border management.

I am not giving Congress an ounce of credit here. What they really care about is micromanaging the Executive branch and getting reelected, whatever it takes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top